— THE — 


FACTS AND FICTIONS 


o P 


Scottish Rite Masonry 


BY “JOABERT 


Price Twenty-Five Cents. 


.. 


CLEVELAND, 0. : 
Brooks & Co., Printers. 















-THE- 


FACTS AND FICTIONS 


Scottish Rite Masonry. 


BY “JOABERT.” 


• V- — v 



—- <—\v. 

Twenty-Five Cents. 





Ay 




CLEVELAND, 0.: 
Brooks & Co., Printers. 
1887. 







Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, by Brooks & Co., in the office of 
the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 




PREFACE 


The contentions existing among Scottish Kite Masons, has aroused an 
interest in the subject matter thereof that has elicited an oft repeated inquiry 
among the Craft, for a summary of the facts, out of which these contentions 
arise. To answer this inquiry is the object of this publication. The citations 
of authorities and references, are for the purpose of verifying the statements 
made, should occasion require, or the inclination of the reader lead him to a 
more minute investigation. Being principally an abridgment of that which 
has heretofore been written, its pretense to originality is so slight, that the 
name of the author becomes immaterial, and the novi de 'plume “Joabert” is 
adopted as a substitute. 


e 



“DEUS MEUMQUE JUS. 



THE MASONIC EDIFICE. 






























































FACTS AND FICTIONS 



asmiry 


“The truth depends on, or is only arrived at, by a legitimate deduction 
from all the facts which are truly material, ,, — Coleridge. 

Freemasonry, as an operative guild, is of such antiquity that its origin is 
lost in the dust and gloom of past ages. As a speculative organization, its 
history dates from about the close of the seventeenth century. “ Its most 
learned enemies cannot point to the time when Freemasonry did not exist, 
which gives it a fame—a pre-eminence—to which the history of other insti¬ 
tutions affords no parallel.” “ The excellence of our institution depends 
upon its usefulness, and not its antiquity. It is sufficient for us to know the 
origin of the institution is so remote, that the date is lost in the lapse of ages, 
and can now be only indistinctly traced by occasional records and the tra¬ 
ditions of the Order.” Prior to 1730, the Masonic structure was complete 
in three degrees. Early in the eighteenth century, there was great interest 
taken in the Order and it flourished as never before known. In 1717, the 
first Grand Lodge was established in England, and marked an important 
epoch in its history. Prior to the establishment of the Grand Lodge, it was 
deemed lawful for three or more Master Masons, to assemble, with the consent 
of the nearest magistrate, and open a Lodge. In 1725, the first Lodge in 
France was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, and worked in three 
degrees. Shortly after this, there appears to have arisen a desire in the 
minds of various persons, who were not satisfied with the old structure in 
three degrees, and additional ones commenced to be invented. In the 
minds of these innovators, great improvements could be made in the archi¬ 
tectural beauty of this ancient structure, that had so long withstood the 
ravages of time. The subjoined illustration shows the relative position of 
the various additions, as they appear at the present time, hence only a brief 
allusion will be made to their history. The first addition is credited to a 





— 6 — 


Scotchman by the name of Michael Andrew Ramsey, who resided in France, 
and was generally known as the “Chevalier Ramsey.” Ramsey, it is said, 
originated the Royal Arch degree, and* succeeded in getting it grafted on to 
the old-time structure, making four degrees instead of three. Subsequently 
the last three sections of the Master Masons degree, which were formerly 
conferred in the Master’s lodge, as explanatory of that degree, were lopped 
off and added to Ramsey’s Royal Arch, which then constituted an additional 
body called a Chapter; the degrees therein conferred, being designated as 
Mark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent Master, and Royal Arch. It 
must be borne in mind that this arrangement of the Chapter degrees occurred 
long after the Royal Arch was adopted by the York Rite, and only embraced 
the one degree. The Royal Arch Chapter, although higher in the scale than 
the Symbolic Lodge, is but a further exemplification of the ancient land¬ 
marks, and has never sought to exercise any dominion over the Symbolic 
degrees. 

ROYAL AND SELECT MASTERS. 

To the Chapter has been appended an organization of Royal Arch 
Masons, called the Council of Royal and Select Masters, and consists of two 
detached, or side degrees, represented in the engraving as a watch-tower 
attached to the Chapter. It is an institution peculiar to Masonry on this 
continent, and is confined almost wholly to the United States. For much of 
the Masonic recognition that it enjoys, it is indebted to the late Ill.*. Bro. 
Jeremy L. Cross, who devoted many years of his eventful life to the estab¬ 
lishment of Councils throughout the States. 

ORDER OF THE TEMPLE, KNIGHTS TEMPLAR, 

Next to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, as a part of the present 
Masonic structure, the Order of the Temple, or Knights Templar, occupies 
the most prominent position. Especially is this the case in regard to the 
controversy now going on in Ohio between the contending factions of the 
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Of the origin of the Templar Order, Dr. 
Mackey says it “originated in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when the 
piety or the superstition of the period induced many people to visit the sepul¬ 
cher of our Saviour at Jerusalem. Many of these religious devotees were 
defenseless and to ward off the hordes of Arabs, who, after the capture of 
Jerusalem by the Christians, continued to infest the sea-coast of Palestine and 
the road to the capital. To protect these pilgrims nine knights, in 1118, 
formed a military brotherhood, and entered into a compact to aid each other 
in defending the pilgrims in their passage to the Holy city. Two of these 
knights were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey de St. Aldemar ; the names of the 
others have been lost.”— (Mackey’s Enc., 421.) It has also been recorded 
that, 

“Although the Equestrian Order existed in ancient Rome as a Patrician band of 
soldiers, modern Knighthood owes its origin to Henry the Fowler, Emperor of Germany, 
at the commencement of the tenth century. Henry’s dominions were blessed with a 
goodly number of poor gentlemen, young and ventursoine, too proud to toil, who either 
served as mercenaries at the baronial courts, or robbed merchants oit the highway, per- 


— 7 — 


sonal courage being their financial capital. The Fowler judged it advisable to consolidate 
the adventurers into a cavalry regiment of Knights, that is to say, yeomen of the crown, 
or his household troops. Hence he pardoned those who had been robbers, and invited 
the others to accept service under the Empire, under conditions making the rank of 
Knight one of honor. 

“ They must not,” quoth the Emperor, “by word or deed wrong the Mother Church.” 

“ Nor,” interfered Count Palatine Conrad, “ hurt the Holy Roman Empire.” 

“ He must not be a liar,” said Berthold of Bavaria. 

“ Nor,” suggested Herman of Swabia, “injure or have injured a weak woman.” 

“ Above all,” insisted Conrad of Franconia, “ he must not have run away in battle.” 

From these familiar suggestions originated the Code of Chivalry, scrupulously 
observed by Knights for many centuries, and not fairly obsolete until the beginning of 
the present century, when the honor of Knighthood was conferred on a man, and not on 
his virtues.” (9 Masonic Chronicle, 203.) 

The above brief allusions to the origin of Templarism, are only 
introduced to show, that from its earliest history down to the commencement 
of the present century, it had no connection witli Freemasonry whatever. 
Nor was it deemed necessary for a man to be a Mason in order to become a 
Knight Templar. In the early part of this century the Templar Order in 
the United States, being composed almost wholly of Masons, the chasm 
that separated the Masonic, from the Templar edifice, was bridged over, 
and it has since been required, that a person seeking admission to a Templar 
Asylum should be a Royal Arch Mason. Within the past few years there 
has been erected vvithin this knightly castle, a minaret bearing the banner of 
the so-called “ Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine.” The 
only relation that this Order has to Masonry, is the fact that its members are 
taken from the ranks of the Templars, that have been adopted and fostered 
by Masonry. The responsibility for this recognition and adoption of the 
Templar Order as a Masonic body, is directly traceable to the efforts of 
the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, for the 
United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies.—(Cerneau). 
The Templar degrees, although commonly classed as belonging to the York 
Rite, are more closely related to the Scottish Rite, and strictly speaking, are 
side-degrees themselves. The various transformations through which the 
Templar Order has passed, finds it, at the present time, with little of its 
originality except the name. 

THE ANCIENT ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE. 

McClenaehan says: “ It is not claimed that the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite is of extreme antiquity, yet the frosts of time decorate its 
brow.” As one of the tenants that has built its habitation on the original 
Masonic edifice, its occupancy thereof, dates from about the time that the 
Royal Arch degree was made known in 1730. Some writers ascribe great 
antiquity to several degrees of the Rite, which was doubtless the case, but 
in any event, the Rite as practiced in this day, only existed at that time 
in a detached form. It is asserted that the Chevalier Ramsey, before re¬ 
ferred to, was largely instrumental in inventing and organizing these degrees. 
It seems, however, that the introduction of speculative Freemasonry into 
France, was the signal for the propagation of degrees, and from that 


— 8 — 


time until 1750 “they swarmed like flies.” Every man who wanted to 
achieve some personal notoriety had one or more degrees, which he labeled 
“ Masonic,” for sale. The authors of these degrees drew largely from 
mythology, the histories and traditions of the guilds of mediaeval times, which 
were worked over and embellished from the fertile imaginations of the man¬ 
ufacturers. Between 1740 and 1750, when the production of degrees reached 
its culmination, there were over 600 different kinds and styles in the 
market. Of this mass of stuff, all but fifty-three were considered of little or 
no account, and these, in 1756, were cut down to twenty-five and called the 
“ Rite of Perfection,” which is the basis of the now Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite. McClenachan (p. 14) thus accounts for this remarkable epoch 
in the history of the higher degrees : 

‘‘At or about the period of the Masonic revival and excitement in the early part of 
the eighteenth century, there was felt a desire for a deeper research into the arcana of 
Freemasonry, and a thorough examination of the esoteric doctrines of the Order. The 
more ardent and brilliant minds of Europe determining to explore the Kabala, and 
enticed by so ennobling a study, resolved to establish a superior grade of Masonry, for 
the exclusive propagation of the mysteries as yet so little known to them, embracing the 
Historical, Philosophical and Chivalric. 

With this purpose in view, attempts were made to establish separate and distinct 
organizations, wherein these sublime truths might be revealed and cultivated. 

Nearly all these projects were ephemeral, and were outlived by their projectors, while 
the “ Rite of Perfection,” the germ of the organization of the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite—based upon the pure principles of Masonry, and the elucidation of the 
occult mysteries, containing twenty-five degrees —gradually approached development.” 

That most of the higher degrees were known and practiced long before 
the commencement of eighteenth century is well authenticated. In 1319, by 
permission of Pope John XXII., Denis I., King of Portugal, established the 
“Order of Christ.” “The head of the Order was vested in the king of Por¬ 
tugal, and the Order, secularized in 1789, was exclusively confined to the 
nobility of that kingdom.” Many of the degrees conferred by the Order 
were identical with those now known as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish 
Rite; especially so as regards the 27th, 30th, 31st, 32d and 33d. 

As early as 1767, thirty-two degrees were known and practiced in America. 
For the purposes of this document it is immaterial how many differ¬ 
ent Rites and degrees were known prior to 1761 ; that the supply was 
almost inexhaustible, is historically established, as well as the fact that none 
of the various Rites now or then in existence can legitimately claim exclu¬ 
sive title to the first three degrees. 

The accompanying diagrams serve to show the rise, progress and fall 
of the more important so-called Rites as they appeared, from time to time, 
in France, and also the varying fortunes of the Scottish Rite since its intro¬ 
duction into America. The detailed history of the Rites we must leave 
the Craft to examine at their leisure, and will only give so much of the out¬ 
line as will lead to a clear understanding of the facts in issue. 

In 1761 there were two Grand Lodges in France, as well as another 
body styled the Council of Emperors of the East and West, which worked 
the “ Rite of Perfection.” The contentions among these rival bodies was 


— 9 — 


exceedingly bitter, yet notwithstanding all this, on the 27th of August, 1761, 
the Council of Emperors of the East and West, and one of the Grand 
Lodges, granted a patent to one 

STEPHEN MORIN 

“ to form and establish a lodge for the purpose of receiving and multiplying 
the Royal Order of Free Masons in all the Perfect and Sublime degrees, &c.. 
in the four parts of the world.” Morin’s commission granted him power 
over the twenty-five degrees agreed upon in Paris in 1758, and afterwards 
confirmed by the commissioners appointed by the Council of Emperors, &c. r 
and the Princes of the Royal Secret, which met at Bordeaux in 1762, to 
revise the high degrees. The legality of Morin’s patent has been seriously 
questioned by some eminent Masonic writers, but, be that as it may, it cer¬ 
tainly gave him color of title to confer those degrees. It is evident that 
the twenty-five degrees named in his patent, were not all that he was in pos¬ 
session of, for shortly after his arrival in the West Indies we find that instead 
of “ establishing lodges,” he was conferring degrees right and left and 
granting patents to his customers “ to go and do likewise.” In 1766, the 
Grand Lodge of France, owing to Morin having grossly exceeded his 
authority, annulled his patent and appointed W. Brother Martin to fill his 
place. The revocation of his patent, however, gave him little concern and 
did not in the least deter him from continuing in the work. How many 
persons received their degrees through Morin, after his patent was 
annulled, will never be known, although it is pretty clearly estab¬ 
lished that most of them were residents of the L T nited States. Neither 
did Morin confine his labors to conferring merely the twenty-five degrees 
of the Rite of Perfection, for in 1767, Ill. Bro. Henry A. Francken, who 
received his degrees from Morin, established a Grand Lodge of Perfection 
in Albany , N. Y., and a warrant issued by him recites that “ By virtue of a 
full power and authority committed to me by the Most Illustrious, Most 
Respectable and Most Sublime Brother Stephen Morin, Gr. Inspector 
of all Lodges relative to the Superior degrees of Masonry from Secret 
Master (4°) to the 29th degree,” &c. 

In 1788, Morin’s successors established a Council of Princes of Jerusalem, 
at Charleston, S.C., and in 1797, a Council of Princes of the Royal Secret. 
The Albany body and both of the Charleston bodies were short-lived. The 
next move in the high degree business that is heard of, is the establishing, 
at Charleston, S. C., of a “Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite,” in 33°, uoder alleged Constitutions promulgated by Freder¬ 
ick the Great, in 1786. There is nothing to show that this body was a con¬ 
tinuation of the former Councils established at Charleston, or had in any way 
the remotest connection with them : but on the 31st day of May, 1801, with¬ 
out any warning whatever, and without the least shadow of authority for its 
organization from any known Masonic body under the Celestial Canopy, this 
remarkable prodigy, whose mission should be to rule the whole Masonic 
world, came into being, at once endowed with the full vigor of maturity. 


— 10 — 


When it was conceived, is an unanswerable conundrum. John Mitchell is 
charged with its paternity, and Dr. Frederick Dalcho with having officiated 
as its accoucheur. It was christened the “Ancient and Accepted Scottish 
Rite,” in 33°, eight more than had ever before been promulgated under 
any regular system bearing the appellation of u Scottish Rite.” Were 
these eight additional degrees new ones, of which Mitchell and Dalcho were 
the creators? History emphatically says No! They had merely taken the 
old 25th degree (Prince of the Royal Secret), and drawn it out into three, 
calling them the 30th, 31st and 32d, between the 24th and 30th they had 
sandwiched five old degrees that had become obsolete half a century before. 
For the 33d they garbled the 33d degree of the old “ Order of Christ,” 
founded by Denis I., of Portugal, in 1319. Thus was their illegitimate off¬ 
spring born. To prevent its dying from inanition, Emanuel De La Motta, 
Isaac Auld and John Alexander were called in the next day to assist in 
nursing it. By 1802, the list of nurses had been increased to nine, among 
whom was one Count De Grasse Tilly. Their next care was to account for 
the parentage of their precious charge, and it was proclaimed that on the 
1st day of May, 1786, Frederick the Great, of Prussia, had finally ratified 
‘ ‘ the Grand Constitutions of the 33d degree, called the Supreme Council of 
Sovereign Grand Inspectors General.” That Frederick, as Grand Com¬ 
mander of the Order of Princes of the Royal Secret, possessed the Sovereign 
Masonic power over all the Craft. In the new Constitution, this high power 
was conferred on a. Council of nine brethren in each nation, who possess 
the Masonic prerogatives in their own district that His Majesty individu¬ 
ally possessed, and are Sovereigns in Masonry; hence, it is claimed 
that a Mason exalted to the 33° under this Constitution, thereby becomes 
endowed and possessed of all the rights and prerogatives of a Past Master; 
that a Sup.*. Council, once formed, can only be dissolved by the death or 
resignation of all its members, so that as long as one is living, the Council is 
in existence; no matter whether it holds any meetings or not. It is further 
claimed that the Sup.*. Council has absolute jurisdiction over the first three 
degrees of the York Rite, which is only waived to regularly constituted 
Grand Lodges, but which may be asserted at any time, should occasion 
require. These and other kindred doctrines promulgated by this so-called 
Constitution, are very convenient for those who did in the past, and still do 
make use of them, to bolster up an institution that is Masonic only in name, 
for its undeniable tendency is to foster and build up an aristocracy which, 
in itself, is wholly inimical to Masonry. The following well-known author¬ 
ities agree in pronouncing these Constitutions a fraud and a forgery: 

Vassal, Essai Hist, sur l’Ins. du Rit Ecossai, 191; The Hermes, 
Vol. 1, p.296; Chemin Dupontes’ Memoire sur l’Ecociss; Clavel’s 
Hist. Pitt ; Schlosser’s Hist, of the Eighteenth Century ; Foul- 
houze, Hist. Inquiry, p. 11; Thory’s Acta Latomorum; Forger’s Hist. 
A. and A. S. R.; Lenning’s Encyclopedia. 

They have been defended only by those who found in them the doctrines 
which compassed their desires. 


— 11 — 

The Constitution of 1762 fixed the number of degrees at twenty-five. 
It was created and adopted by recognized legal authority; its framers closely 
followed the ancient landmarks of the Order in their work, thereby making 
it “strictly republican in all its forms, and the bodies deriving from it 
representative, they being composed of the presiding officers of subordin¬ 
ate bodies, * * * * making the government of the whole 

in accordance with the general laws, rules and regulations of the Masonic 
Order, and in perfect consonance with the Constitution and laws under 
which we live as a free and happy people. It emphatically declared that 
in order to the acknoweldgment and recognition of a body, it must be regu¬ 
larly organized, hold meetings, perform legitimate work, keep accurate 
records of all its proceedings, and be known to the fraternity as being regular 
in the performance of all its legitimate duties.” Its legitimacy, regularity 
or validity has never been disputed, and it has never been abrogated, 
repealed, set aside or annulled by any lawfully constituted authority. This 
Constitution evidently stood in the way of those worthies who wanted to rule 
the Masonic world ; and, in the absence of any record of the adoption of 
their so-called Constitution, they proceed to make fine, by concocting the 
story, that Frederick the Great was instrumental in its production, and 
received his sanction. It was a desperate case and demanded heroic 
treatment. They had undertaken a colossal venture; the paternity of their 
offspring must be established by some prima facia evidence of legitimacy, 
and these so-called Constitutions of 1786 were manufactured. 

This remarkable document is the only thing in Masonic history, or tradi¬ 
tion, that furnishes any foundation on which to erect the Aristocratic 
Monarchy, that is now being upheld by their descendants in direct opposi¬ 
tion to some of the most ancient and sacred landmarks of the Order, as well 
as the principles of the civil government under which we live. Notwith¬ 
standing the fact that history concedes it to be the worst fraud ever perpe¬ 
trated on Masonry, that it has been rejected by every thinking Mason who 
has the future welfare of the Craft at heart, they still continue to worship 
at the shrine of this great skeleton in the Masonic closet, as is evidenced 
by McClenachan’s statement on page 21 of his book, as follows : 

“A Congress of the representatives of eighteen Supreme Councils, heid at Lausanne, 
Switzerland, 22d September, 1875, recognized and proclaimed the constitutions and 
statutes of May 1st, 1786, by whomsoever written and promulgated, and promised to 
maintain and defend with all their power, to preserve and cause to be observed and 
respected the territorial jurisdiction of the twenty-two Supreme Councils named in 
their schedule, among which were those of the Northern and Southern Jurisdiction of 
the United States. This compact still exists (1885) in all its integrity.” 

This statement bears evidence that the “Congress” followed the familiar 
doctrine “ that a lie well stuck to, is as good as the truth.” It is claimed 
that the founders of the Charleston Council were in possession of the 
original document signed by Frederick, but no satisfactory explanation has 
ever been given, why such a precious instrument was not securely kept in 
the archives at Berlin, why it was permitted to be carried around the 
world by unauthorized parties, and become known for the first time fifteen 


— 12 — 


years after its adoption, and in a foreign country at that. History discloses 
the fact, that Frederick the Great was but a Master Mason, and had nothing 
whatever to do with any higher degrees ; that for a year immediately pre¬ 
ceding May 1, 1786, he was suffering from a malady that rendered it physi¬ 
cally impossible for him to have given the matter any attention, and that 
he died in August, 1786. Clavel, the historian, says : 

“That from the year 1744 until his death, Frederick in no wise concerned himself 
about Masonry, that on the 1st of May, 1786, he was dying and absolutely incapable of 
attending to any business whatever, that he was the declared enemy of the high degrees, 
which he considered an injury to Masonry, and that there never was a Council of the 33° 
in Prussia, where previous to 1786 the Rite of Perfection had been, for the most part, 
abandoned.” 

This is the kind of a record on which the Charleston Council of 1801 
asked the Craft to consider it alone legitimate and all else illegitimate. Its 
subsequent history, down to the present time, is very brief and can best be 
told in the language of its present Gr. Commander, Ill.*. Bro.*. Albert Pike 
in his address before the Sup.*. Gr.*.Council of the Southern Masonic Juris¬ 
diction in 1878, page 19 : 

“ I am often asked why we do not publish our old transactions, to which I am com¬ 
pelled to reply, that we have none to publish. We have no record of the transactions from 
1801 to 1860. What minutes we had were destroyed, with many papers, pamphlets and 
books of the Secretary-General, during the war. I never saw any of them, and do not 
know how full or how meagre they were. There is not in the Secretariat, so far as I can 
find, any minute of any session from May 1801 to the session of 1860, except that called 
a session at New Orleans in 1857, not even that of 1859 at Charleston, when our mem¬ 
bership was enlarged, and several new members were added. Except some of the papers 
of which I have spoken, and some old letters, there is nothing to show what the Supreme 
Council did, from its birth until 1860. I do know when I was elected a member, or 
when Grand Commander. The memory of the Secretary-General is the only means 
of proof of the election of any dignitary, or member, from 1802 to 1859. It is certain 
that no regular record book of transactions was ever kept. The Sup. Council existed all 
the time, but it was not always awake. It dosed and was dormant, at least once for quite a 
number of years. When I first heard of it, in 1854,1 think its members were Bros. Honour, 
Furman, Mackey and La Prince at Charleston, Bro. McDaniel at Lynchburg, Bro. Rock¬ 
well at Savannah, and Bro. Quitman in Mississippi. .The last three, I think, never went to 
Charleston, consequently there was never more than three or four at a meeting, as in the 
Northern Jurisdiction, Bros. Gourgas and Yates used to meet and transact business as a 
Supreme Council.” 

The primary cause of the paralytic conditions of these Councils, during 
that time, was the fact that about 1817, Dr. Dalcho, the Sov.*. Gr.*. Com¬ 
mander of the Southern Council, became convinced of the illegitimate organi¬ 
zation of the institution to which he had been a party, and thereafter refused 
and neglected to have anything further to do with it. In 1822, it is said 
that he was deposed from his office as Gr.*. Commander, to which he had 
been appointed for life. By what authority this was done does not appear. 
The first official recognition that this Council was able to obtain from any 
foreign body of the Bite, was in 1829, when it and its alleged offspring, the 
Council for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, were acknowledged by the 
Grand Orient of France. For a Supreme Council making such great preten¬ 
sions as this “Mother” Council has done, the fact that it w*as unable to 
get any acknowledgment from a foreign body until so long after it was 


— 13 — 


established, and then, only when the regularly recognized Council established 
by Cerneau in 1807, had ceased work on account of the Anti-Masonic war 
then waging, must indeed be humiliating for its present adherents to con¬ 
template. 

Another incident in its ignoble career, which came near causing it to 
get into troublesome complications with the Grand Lodge of South Caro¬ 
lina, was its impudent presumption to exercise control over the Blue degrees, 
resulting in its being compelled to waive all jurisdiction over them, show¬ 
ing conclusively, that had the institution been founded on any legal authority, 
it would have never yielded the control of such an important part of its 
structure, to a body which it has always deemed its inferior. Its so-called 
jurisdiction, includes the States west of the Mississippi and south of the 
Ohio rivers, yet it is fast becoming known as the effete Masonic Monarchy 
of the World. Its few subordinate bodies are in a languishing condition. 
An occasional Deputy Inspector has lately come out with a circular offering 
to communicate the grades from the 4th to the 32nd for $110, as they say, 

“ the Inspector will go anywhere in the State and communicate the degrees 
to any number of brethren, even one or two at a place, in order to have 
Masonic pickets, so to speak, to head off impostors.” Notwithstanding that 
it is sadly in need of “pickets,” it is only a brief question of time when it 
will relapse into another period of hibernation, or become totally extinct. 

The experiences for the Sup.*.Council for the Northern Masonic Juris¬ 
diction are so similar to those of the Southern Sup.*. Council, and its history 
is so closely connected therewith, that it will be here considered before 
taking up the facts relating to the organization, and subsequent history of 
the Cerneau Sup.*. Council of 1807. It will be remembered that the so- 
called Constitutions of 1786, provided, among other things, that there should 
be but “ one Supreme Council of nine brethren in each nation.” Yet in 
July, 1813, 

EMANUEL DE LA MOTTA, 

one of the Charleston conspirators of 1801, being in New York, as he said, 
“in quest of health,” pretended to discover, for the first time, the existence 
there, of the Sup.*. Council for the U.*. S.*.,etc., with Cerneau as Gr.-.Com.*. 
He made some inquiry regarding the same, but being unable to show any 
authority for making his investigation, the result was far from gratifying, 
whereupon he proceeded to confer the 33° on several brethern there, and on 
the 5th day of August, 1813, pretended to establish a Sup.*. Council, 33° 
of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite for the Northern Jurisdiction, in 
opposition to the Cerneau Council, which was then in a flourishing con¬ 
dition, having shortly before been duly acknowledged as a regularly consti¬ 
tuted body by the Supreme Council of France. 

In establishing his Northern Council, De La Motta acted solely on his 
own responsibility, without the sanction even of the Charleston Council and 
in direct violation of the alleged Constitutions of 1786, there being already 
one Sup.*. Council in this nation. But he had established his Northern 
Council and forthwith this accommodating document is made to provide 


14 — 


for two Supreme Councils in the United States. Among those who were 
exalted to the 33° by De La Motta, in 1813, for the purpose of forming his 
Council, there was one John James Joseph Gourgas, who was made Grand 
Sec’y.'. Gen.’. In an address delivered before the N. J. Supreme Council 
in 1851, Gourgas stated “ I was Grand Secretary of the Sovereign Kose 
Croix Chapter of Herodim, established in the year 1797, the oldest lawful 
establishment of this grade in our Northern Jurisdiction.” A certificate 
from the W. M. of La Union Francaise Lodge No. 17, of N. Y., dated 
April 28, 1882, reads as follows : 

“ This may certify that the records of this Lodge show that John James Joseph 
Gourgas was initiated as an entered apprentice on the 19th day of June, 1806. Signed, 
John W. Simons, W. M. and P. G. M. of the G. L. of N. Y.,C. W. Bauer, D. D. G. M.’’ 

There is no subsequent record anywhere, to show that he was ever 
passed and raised to the degree of a Master Mason. Nevertheless, Gourgas 
was a prominent figure in the subsequent history of the Council, from which 
it is fair to presume, that De La Motta supplied him with the missing links 
of Fellowcraft and Master Mason. 

After De La Motta had constituted his Council, he 

“ Called on Mr. Cerneau in order to ascertain from him from whence he derived his 
powers. Mr. Cerneau did not give him any satisfaction, but referred him for information 
to the body over which he presided. This reply did not please him, whereupon he 
assumed the bully and demanded in his official (?) capacity an inspection of his author¬ 
ity, coupled with a great deal of bombast. His demand was unavailing, and then called 
upon Hon. DeWitt Clinton, Governor of the State of New York, but met with no better 
success, after which this performer treated Gov. Clinton with the utmost contempt. He 
then, on September 1,1813, expelled Joseph Cerneau, with all his aiders and abettors, 
from every Masonic asylum under heaven, pronounced him an impostor of the first mag¬ 
nitude and declared all those who had been initiated by Cerneau as irregular and un¬ 
lawful and subject to the same treatment. This expulsion was published in the daily 
papers of New York City and a copy of the expulsion was sent to the Grand Lodge of the 
State of NeAV York and was not received but returned (Official Manifesto, p. 24, 
Folger’s History.) 

Of this exploit of De La Motta, Albert Pike was moved to say, in an 
address before his Supreme Council, March 29th, 1860, that “ It is greatly 
to be regretted, that in order to put down the notorious Joseph Cerneau and 
his spurious Sup.'. Council, Ill.'. Bro.'. De La Motta was induced, in 1814, to 
violate the Constitution of 1786, and organize a Supreme Council in New 
York; and still more, that this Sup.'. Council approved his action in the 
premises. From 1815 to 1827 the Northern Council was, as the letters in 
our archieves show, in a dormant condition.” The whole matter appears 
the more ridiculous, when it is known that De La Motta’s official relation to 
the defunct Southern Council, was but that of Treasurer General. 

In 1817, the Northern Council became extinct, without having been 
recognized by any regular body. In 1829, the Anti-Masonic excitement 
having closed the active operations of nearly all Masonic bodies in the 
north, the wily Gourgas seized upon the opportunity to obtain the long de¬ 
sired recognition from the governing bodies in France. About this time 
Gourgas found a kindred spirit in the person of Giles Fonda Yates, and 
took him into partnership in the Sup.'.Council, and they, according to Pike, 


15 — 


comprised the Sup/. Council for the N. M. J. In 1848, Mr. Gourgas and a 
few admirers, seeing the success of the revived Cerneau Council, succeeded 
in resurrecting the old I)e La Motta Council, as an organized body. It 
struggled along until 1851, when Edward A. Raymond became its Gr. 
Commander, and moved its Gr.*. East from New York City to Boston,Mass., 
where under Raymond’s administration, from 1851 to 1860, it prospered to 
some extent. At the annual meeting of the Council in 1860, a fierce quarrel 
arose between Raymond and some of his officers, whereupon he “declared 
the Council adjourned sine die, and immediately selected two or three friends 
and formed a new Council of his own, declaring himself its Gr.*. Com¬ 
mander, and calling it the Supreme Council of the Northern Jurisdiction, 
sitting in Boston.” H. K. Van Rensselaer of Cambridge, Ohio, was a member 
of the old Council, and the leader of the rebellion against Raymond. On 
the same day that Raymond adjourned sine die, Van Rensselear organized 
a Council, with himself as Gr.*. Commander. Raymond continued his 
Council until 1863, when he made overtures looking to a consolidation of 
his Council with the Cerneau U. S. Council, which was finally consummated. 
This Union continued until December, 1866, when the old Raymond faction 
deserted the Union Council, revived the defunct Raymond body, and in May, 
1867, united with their former enemies, the Van Rensselaer faction. These 
constitute the Sup.*. Council for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of 
to-day, of which Ill.*. Henry L. Palmer, of Milwaukee, is Gr.*. Commander, 
and Ill.*. Enoch T. Carson, of Cincinnati, is Deputy for Ohio. It also be¬ 
comes important to state the manner in which the 33° came to be adopted 
in France. In 1804, Count De Grasse Tilly, a protege of the Charleston 
Council, went to France, and at once proceeded to organize a Sup.*.Council 
of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in 33°, at Paris, alleging as his 
authority, his patent from the Charleston Council and the Constitutions of 
1786. This was the first time that these Constitutions had been heard of 
in Europe, notwithstanding the preposterous claim that they were pro¬ 
mulgated by authority of Frederick the Great. 

For nearly three-quarters of a century Masonry in France had been 
afflicted with all manner of disorders and contentions, growing out of the 
wholesale manufacture of degrees, so that by 1790, the institution was well- 
nigh smothered out of existence. By the year 1799, it had sufficiently 
recovered from the effects of the burdens it had been called to bear, that 
it began to thrive again. The Grand Orient was in control of all degrees 
that amounted to anything, and peace once more reigned ; consequently, 
when Tilly appeared with his 33 degrees and a new Constitution, it caused 
no little alarm, and the Grand Orient at once asserted its supremacy over his 
clandestine establishment. This being done, the discovery was made that 
instead of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite being a wholly new Rite, 
it was only the Rite of Perfection worked over, with five old degrees injected. 
The G.*. 0.\ then went to work and rescheduled the Rite of Perfection to 
conform to thirty-three degrees, and instead of using Tilly’s arrangement 
complete, the *24th and 25th degrees (Prince of Mercy and Knight of the 


16 


Brazen Serpent), were transposed. The 29th, (Knight Kadosh), was made 
the 30th, and in its place the Grand Scot, or Knight of St. Andrew, was 
added. The 25th degree of the Rite of Perfection (Sublime Prince of the 
Royal Secret), which Mitchell, Dalcho, Tilly & Co. had drawn out into 
three degrees, making the 30th, 31st and 32d, was restored to its original 
form and made the 32d. For the 31st, the degree of Gr. Inquisitor Inspec¬ 
tor Commander was added, and for the 33d, the Charleston version of the 
33d degree of the Ancient Order of Christ was adopted. Let it be borne 
in mind, that prior to this time, the Rite of Perfection, pure and simple, in 
twenty-five degrees, had for half a century before, been recognized as being 
the embodiment of all degrees that could really claim a place in the Masonic 
structure; the degrees, from the 4th to the 25th, being a grand sequel and 
exemplification of the sublime teachings of the first three. The Grand 
Orient, therefore, having exclusive legal control of not only the Rite of 
Perfection, but of many other degrees which it had cast aside as being of no 
particular account; its action in rescheduling the same to conform to thirty- 
three degrees, based on the Constitutions of 1762, made them legitimate. 
It then transmitted the new schedule to its Deputy Inspectors-General 
throughout the world, one of whom was Ill.’. Bro.*. Joseph Cerneau, with 
authority to confer the degrees in conformity thereto. The result of the 
establishment of a Supreme Council in opposition to the Grand Orient of 
France, is concisely stated by Folger, in his history, page 91, as follows : 

“Although there had been, before the commencement of the present century, much 
contention and strife among the Masons of France, yet those commotions had all been 
subdued by the establishment of the Grand Orient, which gathered within itself, and 
under its control, all the then existing rites of Masonry, and from that time until 1804, 
peace reigned among the brethren throughout the length and breadth of the Empire. 
But on the arrival of the Count De Grasse from America, with a new rite, as he chose 
to call it, and the establishment of a Supreme Council, in that rite, with a Scottish 
Grand Lodge as a rival to the Grand Orient, the war was renewed with great zeal. The 
powers which this Council claimed, the doctrines which it promulgated, and the inno¬ 
vations upon old and established usages and laws, which it attempted to introduce, 
were quite strange and unheard of. The Grand Orient at once declared herself possessed 
of all the degrees which the Count Be Grasse and his Council pretended to have, and 
assumed the control over them. The war between the two bodies was severe, especially 
as De Grasse had turned the whole matter into a political machine, his Supreme 
Council being composed of Bonapartists, and the Grand Orient of Royalists. On the 
downfall of the Empire and the restoration of Louis XVIII. in 1814, the Bonapartists 
who composed the Supreme Council, fled from France and became exiled, while the Grand 
Orient, or Royal party, paid their allegiance to the returning monarch, and became 
high in favor. To use their own language “the Supreme Council after this rcent to sleep,” 
and the Orient, taking all power into its own hands, became the reigning body, and con¬ 
tinues so down to the present time (1862). But the rise of the Grand Orient did not 
crush out the Supreme Council. It continued its work and became again a ruling body 
in its own rite, but no more. It continued to establish subordinate bodies, but had no 
connection whatever with the Grand Orient as before, either by authority or by associa¬ 
tion. The Supreme Council was tolerated. * * * * * j n ^e ^ ran( j Orient 

acknowledged all the bodies created by the Supreme Council, and since that time peace 
has reigned between them.” 

In 1804, there were no Masonic bodies engaged in active work in the 
United States, except the Blue Lodges and a few Royal Arch Chapters. The 


— 17 — 


Supreme Council of 1801, at Charleston, had relapsed into a comatose condition 
and only existed in name, which was the case with other Scottish Rite bodies 
that had been established in this country. The high degrees were only being 
conferred by individuals who derived their power by virtue of patents 
emanating from Stephen Morin and his successors, and not from any 
organized body. This was the condition of what had become known as the 
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in 33°, and so continued until 1806, when 

JOSEPH CERNEAU 

arrived in New York City from Cuba. Cerneau was a native of Villeblerin, 
France, although for several years prior to taking up his residence inNpw York, 
he had resided in San Domingo and Cuba, where he carried on his business 
as a jeweler. In 1787 he was Venerable of the Lodge La Reunion Desire, 
at Port au Prince. Later, he was exalted through all the degrees of the 
original Rite of Perfection, and commissioned a Deputy Inspector General. 
By virtue of his patent, he conferred not only the degrees of the Rite of Per¬ 
fection, but others, which were considered side degrees, including those of the 
Templar Order. Cerneau, like all other Deputy Inspectors, conferred the 
degrees on individuals, but for a different purpose than that of his confreres, 
whose sole object in so doing, appears to have been personal gain. Cerneau 
called about him such men as Hon. DeWitt Clinton, Governor of New York, 
and Gr. Master of the Gr. Lodge of New York, Hon. John W. Mulligan, 
Dep. Gr. Master of the Gr. Lodge, Hon. Cadwallader D. Colden, Mayor of 
New York, and Sr. Gr. Warden of the Gr. Lodge; Hon. Martin Hoffman, 
Elias Hicks, R. W. Gr. Sec’y of the Gr. Lodge, and many other eminent 
Masons in New York City, on whom lie conferred the degrees, for the purpose 
of establishing a Sov. Gr. Consistory and Supreme Council of the Rite, which 
was duly consummated on the 27th day of October, 1807. Whereupon, Cer¬ 
neau surrendered to the organized body, his patent and all individual 
prerogatives, and relinquished all personal right to further confer degrees, 
thereby strictly conforming to the contemplated object of his appointment. 
Notwithstanding all the calumny that has been heaped upon Cerneau by his 
traducers, his whole conduct in the establishment of the Supreme Council of 
1807, shows him to have been “a just and upright Mason,” and entitles his 
memory to the highest respect that can be paid to it bv the Craft in every clime. 
Unselfish, modest and unassuming in his work, his actions are in strange contrast 
to those of De La Motta, Jacobs and others, who used their powers only for 
personal aggrandizement. Immediately on the organization of the Gr.\ Con¬ 
sistory, notice thereof was given “ to the Sup.*. Masonic bodies in Europe and 
the West Indies, to whom it, at the same time, communicated copies of the 
patents under which it WAS formed. These were followed by the most 
ample recognition on the part of the Supreme Council of France, an act suffi¬ 
cient in itself to outweigh the cavils of all impostors. Having heard that a 
Council had existed at Charleston, S. C., which might yet be in activity, a 
circular, with copies of the patent or warrant, and a list of the members, 
was also transmitted thither, and delivered to the person whose name appears 
as Gr.*. Commander to the act approving De La Motta’s denunciation. No 


] 


— 18 — 


answer being received, another was dispatched with no better success. Your 
committee here will just remark, that if the Council at Charleston was a regular 
body, and deemed us usurpers, it was their duty to take instant and effective 
measures to arrest our progress. If we were regular, Masonic courtesy, as 
well as their obligation, required them to acknowledge us without delay. They 
have done neither. This profound silence and neglect was of itself sufficient 
to satisfy the Gr. Consistory, that the body at Charleston, if it ever had a lawful 
existence, was extinct.” (See Doc. No. 18, Folger’s Hist.) 

The notification sent the Gr. Lodge of N. Y., was cordially received 
and ordered on file. (Gr. Lodge Proceedings, 1808, p. 431.) 

The Gr. Consistory being fully aware of the contentions existing between 
the Grand Orient of France and the Supreme Council, made formal 
application to both of these bodies, “for recognition and acknowledgment as 
a proper and legally constituted body, on the ground that they had complied 
with the Statutes and Regulations of the Order, and were now entitled to 
the privileges of the same. In this application, they claimed to have 
received their degrees from, and were constituted by Joseph Cerneau, a 
regular Inspector, and invested with full powers for this purpose; had been 
formed into a Sovereign Grand Consistory for the United States of America, 
their territories and dependencies; and swearing allegiance to the Statutes 
and General Regulations of the Order, they asked from them, proper power 
to proceed in a constitutional manner with their work, an acknowledgment 
on their part that they were regularly formed and constituted, and a recog¬ 
nition of future preceedings, as a Supreme and regular body.” (Forger’s 
Hist. p. 109). The Supreme Council of France was the first to act on the 
application for acknowledgment, and on February 11, 1813, it was conse¬ 
crated, confirmed and sent to New York. The recognition of the Grand 
Orient, was not promulgated until July 10,1816. On the 25th of May, 1812, 
the new schedule in 33 degrees having been received from France, the 
“Supreme Council of Sov.\ Gr.*. Ins.*. Gen.*, of the 33d degree for the 
United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies, was opened 
with the high honors of Masonry, in the City of New York, with its num¬ 
ber of officers complete, viz.: 

Joseph Cerneau, Past Master, M.\ P.\ Sov.*. Gr.\ Commander. 

DeWitt Clinton, Gr.*. Master of the Gr.*. Lodge of N. Y.; M.\ 
Ill.*. Dep.*. Gr.*. Com.*. 

John W. Mulligan, Past Master, M.\ Ill.*. Lieut.*. Gr.*. Com.*. 

Dr. Charles Guerin, Past Master, Ill.*. M.\ of State. 

Cadwallader D. Colden, P.\ Sen.*. Gr.*. Warden, Gr.*. Lodge of 
N. Y., Gr.*. Treas. of H.*. E.\ 

John P. Schisano, Gr.*. Sec.*, of the H.\ E.\ 

Jonathan Schiefflen, Past Master, Ill.*. Gr.*. K.*. of S.\ 

J. P. Berard, G.\ M.\ C.\ 

Martin Hoffman, Dep.*. Gr.*. Mas.*, of Gr.*. Lodge of N. Y., Gr.*. C.\ 
of G.*. 



— 19 — 


The several Masonic bodies in the United States, as also the Grand Ori¬ 
ent of France, were duly informed, by circular, of the establishment of the 
Supreme Council, 33° for the U.*. S.\ of A.*., their Territories and Depen¬ 
dencies ; and July 10th, 1816, the Gr.*. Orient of France gave full recognition 
and acknowledgment to the Sov.*. Gr.\ Consistory and Supreme Gr.*. Coun¬ 
cil, 33°, and named the M.*. Ill.*. Germain Hacquet Prest.*. of the Supreme 
Council of Kites, and Gr.’. Com.’, of the Sov.'. Gr.'. Consistory of the Gr.*. 
Orient of France, as its representative near that body. Ill.-. Joseph Cerneau, 
Gr.*. Com.'., was appointed representative of the Gr.*. Orient of France, 
near the Supreme Council, 33°, for the U.'. S.*. of America, their Terri¬ 
tories and Dependencies.” (Folger’s Hist., 110.) 

In September, 1813, De La Motta issued his famous edict expelling 
Cerneau and all his abettors and followers, from every Masonic Asylum in 
the world. The Grand Lodge of New York treated the matter with silent 
contempt. The Sup.'. Council of France responded as follows: “ Never¬ 
theless, the Ill.'. Joseph Cerneau is a Sov.'. Gr.*. Insp.'. Gen.'., 33°. This 
last and sublime grade having been conferred upon him legitimately, he being 
gifted with powers emanating from the Supreme Council for France.”— 
(Extract du Livre D’Or. Du Sup.*. Conseil pour La France, etc., 1818, 

p. 66.) 

Everywhere the ridiculous fulminations of the Illustrious De La 
Motta, were looked upon with contempt and derision. There are no points 
in this case more clearly established, both by reliable historical writers and 
the testimony of the opposition, than that at the time Cerneau organized 
the Sov.*. Gr.*. Consistory in New York, in 1807, and the Sup.'. Council of 
the A.*. A.*. S.\ R.'., in 33°, in 1812, there was no other active body of the 
Rite in existence in the United States ; that in so doing he in no wise ex¬ 
ceeded his authority, but kept strictly within due bounds; that no matter 
how or when this territory had been occupied by a similar body, regular or 
irregular, it had surely and effectually forfeited any legal claim to prior 
occupancy, by reason of its cessation and suspension of labor, for nearly a 
decade before the New York Cerneau Council was established. 

The degrees conferred by the Cerneau Council, were those prescribed by 
the schedule of the Gr.'. Orient of France, commencing with the 4th and 
ending with the 33d, while those conferred by De La Motta were according 
to the Charleston schedule of 1801, which has been hereinbefore described, 
and it was not until 1822, that the followers of Mitchell, Dalcho & Co. suc¬ 
ceeded in obtaining the correct schedule, as arranged by the Gr.'. Orient. 
How they came into possession of it then, has never been accounted for. The 
establishment of the Cerneau Council, was followed by a most successful and 
honorable career, only the brief outline of which is herein mentioned. 

In January, 1813, it established a Gr.'. Consistory for Rhode Island, 
and in June of the same year, a Gr.'. Consistory in New Orleans for the State 
of Louisiana. It was largely instrumental in the revision of the Templar 
degrees and their adoption as a feature of Masonry. “ January 22, 1814, the 
Sov.'. Gr.'. Consistory, fully impressed with the necessity and importance of 





— 20 


the subject, decreed, by unanimous vote, the establishment of a Grand En¬ 
campment of Sir Knights Templar for the State of New York, and on June 18, 
1814, the Grand Encampment of Sir Knights Templar and Appendant Orders 
for the State of New York, was regularly constituted by the Sov.\ Gr.*. Con¬ 
sistory, &c., for the United States of America, their Territories and Depen¬ 
dencies. Ill.*. Bro.*. DeWitt Clinton, Dep.*. Gr.\ Commander of the Sup.*. 
Council being chosen Grand Master.” In this year Consistories were estab¬ 
lished at Charleston, S. C., and Philadelphia, Pa. 

In 1821,111.*. Bro.*. Cerneau withdrew as Gr.*. Com.*., and was succeeded 
by Ill.*. Bro.*. John W. Mulligan. In 1822, Ill.*. Bro.*. Seth Driggs was 
appointed a Dep.*. Insp.*. Gen.*, for the Island of Trinidad, and a Council 
and subordinate bodies regularly formed there; also at Baltimore, Md.,Havana 
Cuba, Mayaguez, Porto Rico, Cumana, Barcelona and La Guayra. 

In 1823 theGr.*. Consistory issued an edict denouncing the Charleston 
Gr.*. Council and cautioning all Councils and Chapters owing allegiance 
to the Gr.*. Consistory “ against having connection or holding correspond¬ 
ence with certain societies under the assumed title of Kadosh (K. H.), whose 
members are unworthy of possessing the sublime degrees of Philosophic 
Masonry, which are founded upon the Christian religion to which they are 
enemies in principles, and not recognized by this Sov.*. Gr.*. Consistory.” 
(Doc. 24, Folger’s Hist.) 

“ In this year Ill.*. Jno. W. Mulligan retired from the office of Sov.*. 
Gr.*. Commander and was succeeded by Hon. DeWitt Clinton, Gov. of 
N. Y., as Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander, with Ill.*. Bro.*. Elias Hicks as Dep.*. 
Gr.*. Com.*. 

In 1824 General Lafayette visited the United States as the nation’s 
guest, and during his stay, was exalted to the 33d degree in this Council^ 
and on his return to France was appointed its representative near the 
Gr.*. Orient, wherein he was duly received and acknowledged. 

November 22, 1824, the Gr.*. Consistory granted a charter to “ Lafay¬ 
ette ” Chapter of Rose Croix for the Valley of New York. 

In 1825 Ill.*. Richard S. Spofford and John P. Schisano were appointed 
Dep.*. Ins.*. Gen.*, for Massachusetts and Virginia respectively. 

In 1826 Ill.*. David Jewett was appointed Deputy for the Empire of 
Brazil, from which the Gr.*. Orient and Sup.*. Council of Brazil were formed. 

In 1827 the Morgan anti-Masonic excitement caused a suspension of 
nearly all Masonic labors, including those of the Sov.*. Gr.*. Consistory. 

In February, 1828, M.\ Ill.*. DeWitt Clinton, Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander, 
died at Albany, N.Y., and Ill.*. Bro.*. Elias Hicks, Lieut.*. Com.*, became 
his successor. 

During the years 1829, 1830 and 1831 Masonic work was generally 
suspended with few exceptions, notably, Lafayette Chapter of Rose Croix. 

During 1832, M.\ Ill.*. Count St. Laurent, Sov.*. Gr.*. Com.*, of the 
Sup.*. Council of New Spain, S. A., and delegate from the Sup.*. Gr.*. Coun¬ 
cil of France, endeavored to revive the Sup.*. Council of the U. S., by 
establishing what he was pleased to call the “ United Council of the Western 


— 21 — 




Hemisphere,” with Ill.*. Bro.*. Elias Hicks as Sov.'.Gr.*. Commander, and 
which was composed largely of members of the old Council and Consistory 
for the U. S., their Territories and Dependencies. They adopted the pre¬ 
scriptions of 1786, and proclaimed “ a perfect independence of the Rite and 
toleration,” thereby recognizing as valid, that which they had before con¬ 
demned as bogus. Ou this basis, they entered into a “ Treaty of Union and 
Confederation” with the Sup.*. Councils of France, Belgium and Brazil. This 
departure from the time-honored doctrines of the Ancient Council, induced 
many of its members to withdraw and seek refuge in Lafayette Chapter of 
Rose Croix, which continued its meetings uninterruptedly through all the 
troublesome times from 1828 to 1846. 

In 1838, the properties of the various Scottish Rite bodies in New York, 
were purchased by Lafayette Chapter of Rose Croix, and removed to Union 
Hall. 

The regular meetings of the United Sup.*. Council were continued from 
1838 to 1846, but were uninteresting and unimportant, except in so far as contin¬ 
uing the correspondence with foreign bodies. Its membership had “dwindled 
down to a very small number,” and on the 27th day of October, 1846, it was 
dissolved by mutual consent of the few remaining members. It was, how¬ 
ever, immediately “replaced by the members who had retired at various 
times, and took refuge in Lafayette Chapter of Rose Croix, together with 
those who were not associated with any other body of Sublime Masons.” 
“The treaty of 1832 was annulled and abrogated, and the Sup.*. Council 
resumed its previous distinctive title of Sup.*. Council for the United States 
of America, their Territories and Dependencies, with Ill.*. Bro.*. Henry C. 
Atwood as Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander.” 

In 1851, Ill.*. Bro.*. Henry C. Atwood resigned as Gr.*. Commander, 
and was succeeded by Ill.*. Bro.*. Jeremy L. Cross, who held patents from 
both the Ancient U. S. Sup.*. Council and the Charleston Council. “In the 
month of June, the Most Potent Sov.*. Past Gr.*. Commander Hon. John W. 
Mulligan visited the Sup.*. Council” and inspected and confirmed its pro¬ 
ceedings. “Correspondence with various Sup.*. Councils was renewed, and 
several subordinate bodies reorganized.” The De La Motta-Gourgas and 
Charleston bodies revived sufficiently to work off one or two edicts against the 
U. S. Council, “denouncing the whole of the members as impostors,” &c. 

In 1853, Ill.*. Bro.*. Jeremy L. Cross resigned as Gr.*. Commander, on 
account of ill health, and removed to New Hampshire. He was succeeded 
by Past Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander Ill.*. Henry C. Atwood. In this year, the 
controversies between the various Masonic bodies in Louisiana, were referred 
to the Chamber of Council and Appeals of the Gr.*. Orient of France for 
adjudication, which resulted in its finding, that 

“ Definitely, The Regular Supreme Council of New York (in 1807, possessing only 
thirty-two degrees) since 1812, omnipotent for the thirty-third, passed in succession of time 
from Ill.*. Bro.*. De Witt Clinton to Ill.*. Bro.*. Elias Hicks, and finally arrived in the 
Gr.*. Commandery of Ill.*. Bro.*. Henry C. Atwood.” 


— 22 — 


It was further adjudged and decreed, that 

“If the laws of the Scottish Rite mint be known, interpreted, vindicated and ob¬ 
served, it must be through and by the Grand Orient of France, which is the oldest author¬ 
ity, the stock, and the tradition of said Rite. 

As regards the Supreme Council, of which the Ill.'.Bro.’.J. J. J. Gourgas is at present 
the Grand Master, it has no more authority in the matter than the Sup.‘.Council of Char¬ 
leston. It was established on the oth day of August, 1813, * * * * but, at that time 

and since 1807, there existed already at New York, a Supreme Council, as regular as that at 
Charleston, and of which the Hon. DeWitt Clinton, Governor of the State, was the Gr.‘. 
Commander until his death in 1828, and of which the lll.'.Bro.’.Henry C. Atwood is now 
Gr.‘.Commander. The existence of this Supreme Council proved the illegality of the 
Gourgas Sup.*.Council. * * * The Gourgas Sup.‘.Council, an offspring of the Sup-'. 
Council of Charleston, and must, like its parent, respect the decisions of the Grand Orient, 
their common author. These two Sup.‘.Councils labor under serious errors as regards the 
laws by which they are governed, and the rights which they arrogate to themselves. They 
refer to a decree of May 1st, 1786. fathered upon Fredei-ick II., King of Prussia. * 

* * * This Rite, in fact, has no other true regulations than those decreed at Bor¬ 

deaux, on the 20th of September, 1762, by the Commissaries of the Council of the Emperors 
of the East and West, of Paris, and of the Princes of the Royal Secret, of Bordeaux. As 
regards the laws of Frederick II, it is certain that they never existed. * * * * 

All members of the Scottish Rite must consequently now give up the idea of enforcing the 
pretended Grand Constitutions of 1786. 

Thus the prescription concerning the number and seat of the several Supreme Councils 
in the Universe, can no more be admitted, still less can it be applied, to the equally extrav¬ 
agant disposition by which a Sov.‘.Gr.‘.Ins.\Gen.‘. of the 33° had the power of making 
Masons. * * * * Supreme Councils must follow the common law. They 

must derive their powers from a x-egular authority of the Rite, and they can establish their 
seats in such States as may have none. The United States of America, can have one for 
each State of the Union, sis each one has a Grand Lodge on the same principle. Each Rite 
rests on its own primitive degrees. The form may differ, but the main point is always the 
same. 

The Grand Oiieut makes a proper distinction between the Rites it professes. It delivers 
distinct Constitutions for the Lodges of each Rite, or allows the commutation of Rites in 
each Lodge. 

Article 20 of the Constitution provides that a Lodge is the real Masonic foundation, 
that it is she who initiates to the Masonic life. Supreme Councils can dispense with con¬ 
stituting Symbolic Lodges when there exists an authority conferring the inferior degrees; 
but they resume and exert their rights on Symbolism when said authority ceases to practice 
the Rite.” That the Grand Consistory, at New Orleans, was .illegally constituted by the 
Supreme Council of Charleston, (Mackey) and “ that we do consider said Grand Consistory 
as abusive, vexatious and irregular in its works.”— (See Doc. 3, Folger’s Hist.) 

From 1853 to 1860, the Sup.*. Council was in a fairly prosperous condi¬ 
tion. Subordinate bodies having been established in Maine, New York and 
New Hampshire. The Ill.*. Veteran Bros.*. Seth Driggs and Richard S. 
Spofford renewed their membership, and acknowledgments were received 
from the Sup.*. Council of Belgium. 

In 1860, M.\ Ill.*. Henry C. Atwood died, and Ill.*. Bro.*. Edmund B. 
Hays succeeded as Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander. 

In 1861, the following Sub.*. Princes were exalted to the 33°, viz :— 
Benj. C. Leveridge, Gustavus W. Smith, Nehemiah Peck, George Tucker, 
John Sheville, Royal G. Millard, Robert D. Holmes, John C. McArthur, 
Stephen II. Herriman, A. G. Levy, Henry C. Banks, James R. Gardner, 
John Cameron, James C. Bullin, Wrn. B. Newman, William Filmer, Peter 
M. Langton, John J. Crane, Joseph Jennings, and John B. Harris. At the 


— 23 — 


meeting held September 18, 1861, M.*. P.*. Bro.\ John W. Mulligan, P.*. 
Gr.*. Commander of the Ancient Council u addressed the Sup.*. Grand 
Council, at some length, in the most happy strain.” (Reprint Y. II. part I., 
pp. 115, 121, 129.) 

In 1862, the venerable Bro.*. John W. Mulligan died in the 94th year of 
his age. Grand Consistories were established in Boston, Massachusetts, and 
Trenton, N. J. (Reprint, 1881, pp. 131, 147.) 

Early in 1863— 

“ The party known as the Raymond Body of Boston, proposed, in their individual 
capacities and by official resolutions, suggestions looking to the merging in and associa¬ 
tion with the Supreme Council, bringing with them documents, properties, and everything 
appertaining to their organization, which proposition was favorably received and referred 
to a committee consisting of M'. P.\ Edmund B. Hays, Ill.’. Daniel Sickles, and Henry 
C. Banks.”—(2 Reprint, 149-150.) 

Resolutions of like import were adopted by the Raymond Body and 
referred to a committee consisting of M.'.P.*.Edward A. Raymond, Ill.*. 
Lucius R. Page and Geo. M. Randall; with full power to act.—(2 Reprint, 
102 .) 

On February 18th, 1863, the Raymond Committee reported that they 
had “ negotiated, signed and sealed a Treaty of Union, of which the follow¬ 
ing is a copy, to wit: 

ARTICLES OF CONSOLIDATION. 


‘‘Adopted and consummated by and between the Supreme Council, thirty-third and last 
degree, for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States, sitting at Boston, of 
the one part, and the Supreme Grand Council, thirty-third and last degree, Ancient and 
Accepted Scottish Rite for the United States of America, their Territories and Depend- 
ancies, sitting at New York, of the other part. 

Whereas, The said parties, in their individual and sovereign capacities, being 
mutually desirous of advancing the interests of Masonry within the jurisdiction, and 
wishing to consolidate the authorities therein under one governing head, have clothed 
their representatives with full and perfect powers to that end, who, in the name of said 
parties, have agreed, consented, provided and ordained, and do by these presents agree, 
consent, provide and ordain, as follows: 

1st. The said Supreme Councils are, by virtue hereof, consolidated under the name 
of the Supreme Grand Council, thirty-third and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite for the United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies, 
sitting at New York. 

2d. Ill.'. Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, heretofore created by either of the 
parties hereto, shall be recognized upon taking the oath of fealty to the Supreme Council 
for the United States of America, etc. 

3d. All Subordinate Bodies hailing under either of the parties hereto, are to be duly 
acknowledged and recognized, upon taking the oath of fealty to the said Supreme Coun¬ 
cil for the United States of America, etc., and new warrants may be granted, or the 
existing ones properly endorsed, as the said Bodies respectively may elect. 

4th. All properties, of whatever name, kind and description, belonging to the 
parties hereto, or either of them, are hereby declared to be vested in the said Supreme 
Council of the United States of America, etc., and will be delivered accordingly to the 
Grand Secretary-General thereof. 

5th. Until otherwise ordered, the Constitutions and General Regulations of the 
second party hereto, are hereby adopted and declared in full force for the government of 
the Consolidated Body herein provided for. 


p 


— 24 — 


(3th. The number of Active Members of said Council is hereby increased to seventeen 
(creating eight new offices), and the officers of the said Consolidated Council, ad vitam, 
shall be as follows: 

Ill.'. Edmund B. Hays, M.\ P.\ Sow*. Grand Commander. 

Edward A. Raymond, Sov.'. Assistant Grand Commander. 

Simon W. Robinson, First Lieutenant Grand Commander. 

Hopkins Thompson, Second Lieutenant Grand Commander. 

Benjamin C. Leveridge, Grand Orator. 

Geo. M. Randall, Grand Minister of State. 

Lucius R. Page, Grand Chancellor. 

Daniel Sickles, Grand Secretary General H.'. E.’. 

Robert E. Roberts, Grand Treasurer General II.*. E.'. 

Henry C. Banks, Grand Marshal General H.'. E.'. 

Aaron P. Hughes, Grand Sword Bearer. 

Harry J. Seymour, First Grand Master of Ceremonies. 

Chas. T. McClknachan, Second Grand Master of Ceremonies. 

Peter Lawson, Grand Introductor. 

John Innis, Grand Standard Bearer. 

Wm. Field, First Grand Captain of Guard. 

Wm. H. Jarvis, Second Grand Captain of Guard. 

7th. The Emeritus position of Sov.'. Assistant Grand Commander is conferred on 
Ill.'. Edward A. Raymond, in recognition of his long and distinguished services in the 
Rite. 

In testimony of all which, Edward A. Raymond, George M. Randall, and Lucius 
R. Paige, on behalf of said first party, and Edmund B. Hays, Daniel Sicki.es and Henry 
C. Banks, on behalf of said second party, have hereunto set their hands and seals, inter¬ 
changeably, for the uses and purposes hereinbefore expressed. 

Done at the City of Boston, this seventh day of February, A.D. 1863. 


EDWARD A. RAYMOND, 

[L.S.] 

GEO. M. RANDALL, 

[L.S.] 

LUCIUS R. PAIGE, 

[L.S.] 

EDMUND B. HAYS, 

[l.s.] 

DAN TEL SICKLES, 

[L.S.] 

HENRY C. BANKS, 

[L.S.] 


And on the date last above-mentioned, “the M.*. P.'. Sov.*. Gr.*. Com¬ 
mander (Raymond) pronounced the Supreme Grand Council closed sine die. 
(2 Reprint, 104,106.) 

On the 15th day of April, 1863, the committee appointed in the U.*. 
S.\ Supreme Council reported that they had agreed to and signed the same 
Articles of Consolidation as the late Raymond body had done, which report 
was unanimously adopted. (2 Reprint, 152.) 

“The following Ill.*. Brethren were then introduced: Simon W. Rob¬ 
inson, Geo. M. Randall, Aaron P. Hughes, Peter Lawson and William 
Fields,” and the officers of the Supreme Council named in the Articles of 
Consolidation were then duly installed. (2 Reprint, 153, 154.) 

Thus was the Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction of the 
United States, as completely and effectually wiped out of existence, as it was 
possible for human action to do. On the other hand, the only material altera¬ 
tion in the status of the U. S. Sup.*. Council was the increase of officers from 
nine to seventeen. 

On this subject, the 111.*. Albert Pike, Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander of the 
Sup.*. Council for the Southern Jurisdiction, says: 


25 — 


“ I am inclined to think, that if the Body of which Ill.'. Bro.'. Raymond was Chief, 
was the Supreme Council for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction,it ceased to exist by mer¬ 
ger. It is the Hays Council that still exists in substance, though no longer in name. Its 
laws govern; its Grand Commander presides.”—(Address, Pro. Sup.'. Council.'.,S.\ J.'., 
1866, pp. 75,76.) 

Another pointed reference to this consolidation may be found in the pub¬ 
lished proceedings of the N. J. Council for 1882, at pages 155 and 156, which 
reads as follows : 

“ In the early years of the century, two other Supreme Councils were organized, one 
by Joseph Cerneau, at its See at New York City, and claiming jurisdiction over the entire 
United States; and the other by De La Motta, as delegated under the fundamental Con¬ 
stitution by the Charleston Supreme Council to have jurisdiction over the Northern 
States—its See at New York City, but which was removed to Boston in 1851—known as 
the Gourgas Council .” 

“In 1860, the Gourgas Council became divided. Ill.*. Killian Van Rensselear com¬ 
manding one, and Ill.'. Edward A. Raymond commanding the other, while the Cerneau 
Council was under the command of Edmund B. Hays.” 

“ On the seventh day of February, 1863, a solemn Treaty of Union was entered into, 
without a dissenting voice, between the Supreme Councils commanded by Edward A. 
Raymond and Edmund B. Hays, and a new Council evolved, under the name of the 
Supreme Grand Council for the United States of America, their Territories and Depend¬ 
encies, Ill.'. Edmund B. Hays becoming the Sov.’. Gr.’. Commander, and Edward A. 
Raymond Dep.*. Gr.'. Commander, thus all there was of either of the bodies known as 
the Cerneau Supreme Council, or the Raymond Council,was merged into a new and united 
organization beyond the power of any combination of Sov.'. Gr.'. Ins.'.-Gen.', to again 
revive either of the former ones.” 

Vi owing this union in the light of past history, it seems a little strange 
that such a phenomenal event should take place “ without a dissenting voice,” 
especially when we consider the material composing it. The Raymond body 
being descended from the notorious Ile La Motta, and staunch supporters of 
the so-called Constitutions of 1786, were naturally cold, haughty, imperious, 
domineering, arrogant and aristocratic; that they should leave their name, as 
well as their traditions behind, and come into the camp of their adversaries 
of half a century, bringing with them their property and laying it on the 
altar of a Council with directly opposite tendencies, whose foundation was the 
Constitution of 1762, and whose tenets were Brotherly Love, Relief and 
Truth; all apparently for the sole purpose of restoring that essential Masonic 
attribute “ harmony,” was most remarkable to say the least. 

The absorption of the Raymond Council gave a new impetus to the work. 

In May, 1863, a Gr.*. Consistory was established at Providence, R. I. 
In June, one at Nashua, N. H., and in August, one at Milwaukee, Wis. On 
the 6th, 7th, and 8th of August, 1863, M.\ P.-. Sov.'. Gr.-. Commander 
Edmund B. Hays, assisted by Ill.*. Bro.*. Sickles conferred the Ineffable and 
Sublime degrees on twenty-nine brethren, at Milwaukee, Wis., among whom 
was Ill.*. Henry L. Palmer, (now Sov.'. Gr.'. Commander of the N. J.), and 
who was then and there elevated to the 33d and last degree, and appointed 
District Deputy for the State of Wisconsin. (2 Reprint, 165.) 

The first evidence of a desire on the part of the Raymond men to return 
to their first love, is to be found in the adoption of the report of a Committee, 
recommending a change in the name of the Sup.*. Council, from that of the 


r 


— 26 — 


Sup.*. Council of the United States of America to that of the Sup.*. Council 
of the Northern Jurisdiction, which took place Oct. 22,1865. (2 Reprint, 201.) 

A few weeks after this change of name, (Dec. 14, 1865,) the Sov.*. Gr.*. 
Commander, Edmund B. Hays, resigned, and Ill.*. Bro.*. Simon W. Robin¬ 
son was elected Sov.*. G.*. Commander. (2 Reprint, 203, 207.) 

On December 14, 1865, Ill.*. Harry J. Seymour was expelled “ from all 
the rights and privileges of Masonry in every branch of the Ancient and 
Accepted Scottish Rite.” A resolution to this effect being adopted after 
hearing proof fully sustaining charges and specifications of gross unmasonic 
conduct. (2 Reprint, 208.) 

This session of December 14, 1865, was the last held in that year. The 
next meeting convened in New York on the 6th day of June, 1866. The 
officers of the Council comprising III.*. S.\ W.*. Robinson, Sov.*. Gr.\ Com¬ 
mander; Jno. L. Lewis, P.\ Lieut.*. Giv. Com.*.; Lucius R. Paige, G.\ O.*.; 
Daniel Sickles, Giv. Sec’y.*. Gen.*. H.*. E.\; Geo. W. Bentley, Gr.*. Treas.*. 
Gen.*. H.*. E.*.; Henry C. Banks, Gr.*. M.*.; C. T. McClenachan, Gr. M.*. 
C.\; John Innis, Gr.*. S.\ B.\; Peter Lawson, Gr.*. C.*. G.\; Hopkins 
Thompson, Clinton F. Paige, Aaron King, William Barrett and J. Clark 
Hagey, S.\ G.\ I.*. G.\. (2 Reprint, 211.) 

It appears from this list that the majority were former Raymond men, 
Ill.*. Bros.*. Banks and Thompson being the only original Hays men honored 
with seats as active members of the Council. The record of the proceedings, 
does not disclose anything to indicate but what the proceedings were con¬ 
ducted with harmony and decorum. One of the most important items of 
business transacted at this session,was the adoption of the following resolution: 

“Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed for the purpose of receiving any 
proposition which may be made to this Body from any source within its jurisdictional 
limits, to adjust any differences which may exist therein, and that they be and are hereby 
empowered to make such settlements, and give such positions to Bodies or individuals in 
the Order, as may, in their judgment, be deemed just and proper, provided, that any prop¬ 
osition affecting the present status of this Supreme Council, or having any reference 
whatever to the thirty-third degree, be submitted to and determined by this Council while 
in session. That the committee have until the next annual session to act and report, and 
should circumstances warrant an application for a special meeting of this Council, its 
utility shall be determined by the first three officers.”—(2 Reprint, 217.) 

This resolution had reference to the Van Rensselaer faction, who de¬ 
serted the defunct Raymond Council in 1860, since which time they had 
managed to eke out an uncertain existence as a rival Council, but were now 
costing about for a harbor of refuge, wherein they might anchor their 
dilapidated hulk and save it from total destruction. Another important 
resolution was adopted towards the close of the meeting, which reads as follows: 

“ Resolved , That the time of holding the annual session be changed from second 
Tuesday in June to thellast Tuesday in October, in each year.”—(2 Reprint, 222.) 

Thereby carrying the next meeting over until October, 1867. 

“ This closed probably one of the largest and most harmonious assem¬ 
blages of Ineffable and Sublime Masons ever convened in a Council Cham¬ 
ber.” (2 Reprint, 225.) 



This was the last meeting of a Council, that had had an honorable recorded 
existence for nearly sixty years, and an unbroken line of Sov.'. Gr.'. Com¬ 
manders from Ill.*. Joseph Cerneau through Ill.*. John W. Mulligan, DeWitt 
Clinton, Elias Hicks, Jeremy L. Cross, Henry C. Atwood, Edmund B. Hays 
to Simon W. Robinson; whose Grand East was then and always had been at 
New York City. 

On the 27th day of November, 1866, six months after the annual meeting in 
June, without any authority from the Council, or the recorded consent of its 
members, but of his own volition, arbitrarily, and in the face of the record 
previously quoted, the Sov.*. Gr.*. Commander, Simon W. Robinson, issued 
the following summons: 

_ “ Orient of New York. November 27,1886. 

Peer and Bro.\ Gr.'. Ins.'.-Gen.'.,— 

You are hereby summoned to meet the Sov.'. Gr.*. Commander, and Brethren Sov.'. 
Gr.'. Ins.'.-Gen.’., at Nassau Hall, corner of Washington and Common Streets, Boston, 
Massachusetts, on Thursday, December 13th, at 11 o’clock a.m., for the purpose of opening 
a session extraordinary of the Supreme Council, and for the transaction of such business 
as may legally come before it. Per order, 

S. W. Robinson, 33°, 

M.‘. P.'. Sov.'. Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 
for Northern Jurisdiction, U. S. A. 

Attest: John F. Currier, 33° 

Asst.'. Gr.'. Sec.'.-Gen.'. H.'. E.'.” 

The following named Ill.*. Brothers, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, assembled 
at Nassau Hall, in the City of Boston, State of Massachusetts, on the fifth day of the 
Hebrew month, called Tebet, A.'. L.‘. 5627, answering to Thursday the thirteenth day of 
December, in the year of our Lord, 1866: 


III.’. Simon W. Robinson, 
John L. Lewis, 
Lucius R. Paige. 

Geo. W. Bentley, 
Henry C. Banks, 

C. T. McClenachan, 
Win. Field, 

Ill.'. Samuel C. Lawrence, 
Richard M. Barker, 
John G. Case, 

John F. Currier, 
Israel Hunt, 


Ill.'. John Sheville, 
Clinton F. Paige, 
J. Clark Hagey, 
Win. Barrett, 
Aaron King, 
Peter Lawson. 


honorary. 

Ill.'. R. M. C. Graham, 

Thomas A. Doyle, 

Wyzeman Marshall, 

James H. Freeland, 

Albert H. Goodall, 

Representative of the Supreme Council of Brazil. 


Ill.'. Simon W. Robinson, M.’. P.’. Sov.’. Grand Commander, being present, 
announced, that consequent upon the death of Ill.'. Edward A. Raymond, late Sov.'. 
Grand Commander, he had succeeded to the Sov.’. Grand Commandership of the Supreme 
Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the thirty-third and last degree of the 
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, for the Northern Jurisdiction of 
the United States; and, in the exercise of the rights, privileges and functions of said 
office, he had notified and summoned the following Ill.'. Brethren, viz: Charles IV. 
Moore, Albert Case, Charles R Starkweather and A. B. Young, to appear before him in 
Council Chamber, and they having failed or neglected to obey said summons, or to take 
notice thereof, he declared and proclaimed their seats in the Supreme Council to be 
vacant, and that he should proceed to fill up the vacancies in the Supreme Council, pur¬ 
suant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitutions of 1786.” (2 Reprint, 228.) 


— 28 


The records show that this meeting was called at Boston, Mass., with¬ 
out any action of the Supreme Council adjourning thither ; that only one of 
the members of the original Hays Council was in attendance, viz. Ill.*. 
Henry C. Banks; that four members of the Van Rensselaer faction, who 
had been expelled by the Raymond Council shortly after the split in 1860, 
were summoned, but failed to answer, and that the principal business tran¬ 
sacted at this meeting was the formation of an entirely new Council out of 
the material above named, based on the Constitutions (?) of 1786. 

The only reference made to the “ Union Council ” at this meeting is 
contained in Robinson’s address, as follows : 

“ Ill.*. Bro. Pike, whose researches, Masonic intelligence aud familiar acquaintance 
with whatever pertains to the Ancient and Accepted Rite, gives to his opinion almost the 
authority of law, concurs with the Southern Council; and he is also of the opinion that 
the Raymond Council is not dead, but its vital energies suspended for the time being; and 
the Lieut.*. Commander, under the late E. A. Raymond, succeeds to the office of Sov.". 
Grand Commander of the only legitimate Council of the Northern Jurisdiction. 

“ To place ourselves within the pale of legitimacy, and secure fraternal relations with 
the Southern Council, and all other regular Councils, induced the Brethren to dissolve the 
1 Union Council,’ which has been done by the unanimous consent of every member. 

“ The Union Council being dissolved, its members are consequently absolved from the 
Oath of Fealty, and may lawfully resuscitate the Raymond Council, and exercise all the 
rights, privileges and functions to which it was entitled previous to its union with the 
Hays Council. 

“ This resuscitation has been consummated as provided in the 2d section of Article 3 
of the Constitution of 1786; and proclamation has been made that the Officers have been 
regularly appointed and installed, and the Council is now ready to proceed to the consid¬ 
eration of business that may regularly come before it. 

“And now, Ill.*. Brethren, permit me to congratulate you upon the success of your 
efforts in the business for which the present meeting was called. You have resuscitated 
the Council from its dormancy, breathed into it the breath of life, and restored all the vital 
energies with which it was originally invested.”— (2 Reprint, 231,232.) 

The record does not disclose “the unanimous consent of every member,” 
or that the “Union Council” was dissolved, except Robinson’s assertion 
above quoted, and, from this, but one conclusion can be rationally deducted, 
viz: That it was “Robinson’s Circus.” It was he who caused summons 
to issue to such as would do his bidding and keep his commandments, and 
only such, did he consider members. Under his leadership, they went to 
the tomb of the Raymond Council, at Boston, resurrected that stinking 
cadaver and clothed it with the liabilaments of the Union Council, which 
they had converted to their own use. Through this process of evolution, 
came what is known today as the “Sup.*. Council for the Northern Masonic 
Jurisdiction,” notwithstanding, it has subsequently recorded in its pro¬ 
ceedings, in 1882, that “all there was of the Raymond Council had been 
merged in the ‘ Union Council’ beyond the power of any Sov. Gr.*. Ins.*. 
Gen.*, to revive it.” The conspiracy was carefully planned and carried out. 
The true inwardness of the transaction was not disclosed to the members of 
the old Council, who were absolved from their oath of fealty by the fiat 
of Robinson, instead of by their “own free will and accord,” and were not 
present at the resurrection. It was not until 1881 that proof of the dupli¬ 
city and perfidy of the transaction, was fully made known. In that year, 


— 29 — 


the Annual Reports of the Raymond and Hays Councils, from 1860 to Dec. 
14, 1866, were collected together and published by authority of the N. M. J., 
in one volume entitled “ Reprint of the Proceedings of the Supreme Coun¬ 
cil, 33°, A.*. & A.*. Scottish Rite, N. M. J. Vol. II. Part I. Portland. 
Stephen Berry, Printer,” and it is from this publication, that the foregoing 
quotations have largely been made. 

Its appearance had an opposite effect from that intended, and 
caused no little excitement among the members of the Veteran Council, 
who had long before become satisfied, that they had been “frozen out” but 
had no direct evidence of the fact until the “Reprint” appeared and with it 
came the “true light” for which they had so long waited. The old say¬ 
ing “give a thief rope enough and he will hang himself” was aptly 
exemplified in this instance, so much so, that the edition was promptly 
suppressed, and, although the nominal price of the publication is seventy- 
five cents, owing to its sudden scarcity, five dollars is not considered 
a high price for a well preserved copy. The “Reprint” also had the 
effect of calling forth the following petition : 

“ We, the undersigned, S.\ G.’. I.’. G.\ of the 33d degree of the A.‘. and A.’. S.\ Rite, 
members of the Supreme Council for the United States of America, their Territories and 
-Dependencies, established in the City of New York during the year 1807, by authority of 
Ill '. Joseph Cerneau, and continued by and under said authority transmitted to his suc¬ 
cessors in office, into the Ill.*. Edmund B. Hays, late Sov.'. Gr.'. Commander, do hereby 
petition and request our late Ill.'. Lieut.'. Gr.*. Commander, Hopkins Thompson, to sum¬ 
mon and call a meeting of the said Supreme Council, for the purpose of assuming all of its 
rights and privileges. 

“We furthermore agree to comply with said call, and aid and assist in the reorgani¬ 
zation of this said Supreme Council with the distinct understanding that, on the consum¬ 
mating of the same, we pledge ourselves, and enact the same for our successors, that the 
said Supreme Council shall forever remain sovereign and independent in the exercise of 
its former rights and privileges, and will forever discountenance any union or dissolution 
of the said Supreme Council whatsoever. 

[Signed,] D. W. Thompson, 33° 

E. Holden, 33° 

J. B. Harris, 33° 

Rorert E. Roberts, 33° 

Wm. H. Jarvis, 33° 

E. W. Atwood, 33° ” 

Thereupon the following summons was issued : 

“Incompliance with a request made by several Active and Honorary members of 
Sup.'. Council of .the thirty-third and last degree, Ancient and Accepted Rite, 
founded by Ill.'. Bro.*. Joseph Cerneau, October 27th, 1807. By virtue of the high powers 
vested in me as P.'. P.*. Lieut.'. Gr.*. Commander, I hereby notify you, as a member of 
said Council, to attend an Extraordinary Session of the same, at the German Masonic 
Temple, on Tuesday afternoon, September 27th, 1881, at one o’clock, for the purpose of 
opening an Extraordinary Session of the Supreme Council, and for the transaction of 
such business as may legally come before it. 

Given under my hand and the Grand Seal of the Order, this 24th day of September, 
A.P. 1881. 

Hopkins Thompson, 33° 

[Seal.] P.\ Lieut.*. Gr.'. Commander.” 

—(Pro. U.*. S.'. Sup.’. Council, 1881, p. 3.) 


r* 



— 80 — 


The following Ill.*. Brethren responded to the above summons: 

“ Ill/. Hopkins Thompson, P.\ Lieut/. Gr.‘. Commander. 

Robert E. Roberts, P.\ Gr.'. Treas/.-Gen/. of the H.'. E.'. 

Robert B. Folger, P.'. Gr/. Sec/.-Gen.*, of the H.‘. E.*. 

Win. H. Jarvis, P.*. Gr/. Capt.*. of the Guard. 

Edw. W. Atwood, P.\ Deputy for Connecticut. 

John B. Harris, Sov.". Gr.*. Insp/.-Gen.’. 33° 

David W. Thompson, “ 

Wm. W. Narramore, “ 

Edward Holden, 

Eli Thompson, 

Andrew J. Fisher, “ “ 

Gilbert M. Platt, 

All of whom were members of the Ancient Council.”— (Pro. U.\ S.*. C/., 4.) 

After stating the object of the meeting, it was unanimously resolved to 
resurrect, reconstruct and continue the work of the Sup.*. Council, which 
had been suspended since June, 1866. The stations were filled pro tern., 
until October 27, 1881, when the annual election took place, resulting in 
the choice of the following officers : 

Ill.*. Hopkins Thompson, M.*. P.\ Sov.*. Gr.*. Com.*. 

Edward W. Atwood, Lieut.*. Gr.*. Com.*. 

Bobert E. Roberts, Gr/. Treas/. Gen.*. 

Robert B. Folger, Gr.*. Sec’y.*. Gen.*. 

John G. Barker, Gr.*. Keeper of the Archives. 

John Innis, Gr.*. Standard Bearer. 

John B. Harris, Gr.*. Master of Ceremonies. 

David W. Thompson, Gr/. Marshal. 

Wm. H. Jarvis, Gr.*. Capt.*. of the Guard. 

—(Pro. U/. S/. C.\ 14.) 

Proclamation was also made : 

“To our Illustrious, Most Valiant, and Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret; Knights 
of Ivadosh, Illustrious Princes and Knights, Grand, Ineffable and Sublime, Free and Ac¬ 
cepted Masons of all degrees, Ancient and Modern, over the surface of the Two Hemispheres. 

“ Hereby declare: That for various and weighty reasons, we have resurrected the Cer- 
neau Council; which body, having maintained an uninterrupted existence of nearly sixty 
years, and after absorbing the Raymond Council, in 1863, was abandoned by 111.*. Simon W. 
Robinson, Sov/. Gr/. Commander, in 1866; all the members being declared absolved by 
him from their Oath of Allegiance, December 13th, 1866. In resuscitating the old Council 
we hereby take the date of September 27th, 1881, and our Annual Meeting and Election of 
Officers on October 27th, 1881, the anniversary of its foundation in 1807. That it abrogates 
and denounces a document styled the “ Secret Constitutions of 1786 ” as a forgery and a 
fraud, and builds its foundation on the Constitution of 1762, and the General Laws, Rules 
and Regulations of Masonry. 

“ That it Constitutionally claims Masonic Jurisdiction over the United States of 
America, their Territories and Dependencies, as the Supreme Tribunal for the Grand, In¬ 
effable and Sublime Degrees, Ancient and Accepted Rite of the thirty-third and last degree. 
******“ That the Supreme Council, and the various bodies under its 
Charters, admit no one into its aforesaid degrees, and require no other qualifications in can¬ 
didates except that they be “good men and true,” and have been regularly initiated into 
‘Ancient Craft Masonry ’ by some regular legal ‘Ancient York Master Mason’s Lodge,’ 
and are, at the same time, either Officers or Active Members of such a Lodge.”— (Prockrd- 
ings IT/. S.\ S.\ C/., 1881, 1). 124.) 



31 — 


The utterance of this proclamation was accepted by the Northern and 
Southern Jurisdictions as a declaration of war, and they went into it with a 
determination to crush, demolish and forever blot out this hated rival, that 
againdared to dispute their title. Most of the members of the N.and S. Jurisdic¬ 
tions were ignorant of their true pedigree, and were thus in good position to 
blindly follow the leadership of men whose Masonry appears to have been 
divested of all fraternal attributes, except the name. Starting with the 
bare assertion that the only regular route to the summit of the Masonic edi¬ 
fice is their way, and that any other is bastard, spurious and clandestine, 
they cast aside all the noble, magnanimous and sublime teachings of the 
Order, and wield to their utmost, the unmasonic weapons of calumny, abuse, 
vilification, slander, vituperation and intrigue, thus following the Papal doc¬ 
trine “ that the end justifies the means.” 

Being strong in numbers, and rich in treasure, this sort of warfare ill be¬ 
comes a body claiming to be Masonic, and which makes such positive declara¬ 
tions of its legitimacy. Were these declarations sustained by Masonic law, 
or even their own records, the present contest could not exist. 

Notwithstanding all this, the Supreme Council of the United States 
of America, their Territories and Dependencies, has steadily kept its 
course for truth and right, 11 without wrath or rancor, saying or doing 
nothing which may hinder Brotherly Love, and good offices to be renewed 
and continued ; that all may see the benign influence of Masonry, as all 
true Masons have done from the beginning of the World, and will do to 
the end of time.” 

Since 1881, the following subordinate bodies have been established or 
renewed their allegiance to the U. S. Council, viz : 

California.. —Sacramento Lodge of Perfection. Sacramento Council of 
Princes of Jerusalem. Sacramento Chapter of Rose Croix. 
California Council of Kadosh. Chico Lodge of Perfection. 

Florida. —St. Augustine Lodge of Perfection. St. Augustine Council of 
Princes. St. Augustine Chapter of Rose Croix. St. Augustine 
Council of Kadosh. 

Connecticut. —Sov.*. Gr.\ Consistory of Conn., at New Haven. Quini- 
piac Lodge of Perfection, at New Haven. Quinipiac Council 
of Princes of Jerusalem, at New Haven. Quinipiac Chapter 
of Rose Croix, at New Haven. Quinipiac Council of Kadosh, 
at New Haven. 

Indiana. —Ft. Wayne Lodge of Perfection. Ft. Wayne Council of Princes 
of Jerusalem. Ft.Wayne Chapter of Rose Croix. Ft.Wayne 
Council of Kadosh. 


r 


Iowa. —Sov.‘. Gr.-. Consistory. Cedar Rapids Lodge of Perfection. Cedar 
Rapids Council of Princes of Jerusalem. Cedar Rapids Chap¬ 
ter of Rose Croix. Cedar Rapids Council of Kadosh. Ft. 
Dodge Lodge of Perfection. Ft. Dodge Council of Princes of 
Jerusalem. Ft. Dodge Chapter of Rose Croix. Ft. Dodge 
Council of Kadosh. Burlington Lodge of Perfection. Burling¬ 
ton Council of Princes of Jerusalem. Burlington Chapter of 
Rose Croix. Burlington Council of Kadosh. 

Massachusetts. —Grand Consistory of Mass., 32°. Joseph Cerneau Lodge 
of Perfection, at Boston. DeWitt Clinton Council of Princes, 
at Boston. DeWitt Clinton Chapter of Rose Croix, at Boston. 
DeWitt Clinton Council of Kadosh, at Boston. Haverhill 
Lodge of Perfection. Haverhill Council of Princes. Haver¬ 
hill Chapter of Rose Croix. Haverhill Council of Kadosh. 
Middlesex Lodge of Perfection, of Lowell. 

Minnesota. —Grand Consistory of Minn., 32°, at Minneapolis. Minneapo¬ 
lis Lodge of Perfection. Minneapolis Council of Princes. 
Minneapolis Chapter of Rose Croix. Minneapolis Council of 
Kadosh. Hastings Lodge of Perfection. Hastings Council of 
Princes. • Hastings Chapter of Rose Croix. 

New Hampshire. —Dover Lodge of Perfection. Dover Council of 
Princes. Dover Chapter of Rose Croix. Dover Council of 
Kadosh. Ashuelot Lodge of Perfection, at Keene. Monad- 
nock Council of Princes, at Keene. Cheshire Chapter of Rose 
Croix, at Keene. Keene Council of Kadosh. 

New York. —Triple Alliance Lodge of Perfection, at New York City. 

Manhattan Council of Princes, at New York City. Manhattan 
Chapter of Rose Croix, at New York City. Manhattan Coun¬ 
cil of Kadosh, at New York City. Shekinah Lodge of Perfec¬ 
tion, at Brooklyn. Brooklyn Council of Princes. Brooklyn 
Chapter of Rose Croix. Brooklyn Council of Kadosh. Troy 
Lodge of Perfection. Troy Council of Princes. Troy 
Chapter of Rose Croix. Troy Council of Kadosh. Jos. 
Cerneau Lodge of Perfection, at Pen Yan. Cerneau 
Lodge of Perfection, at Elmira. Cerneau Council of Princes, 
at Elmira. Cerneau Chapter of Rose Croix, at Elmira. Cer¬ 
neau Council of Kadosh at Elmira. Herkimer Lodge of Per¬ 
fection. Salem Town Lodge of Perfection, at Auburn. 
Salem Town Council of Princes, at Auburn. Salem Town 
Chapter of Rose Croix, at Auburn. Salem Town Council of 
Kadosh, at Auburn. 


Ohio. —Soy.*. Grand Consistory, 32°, at Columbus. Columbus Lodge of 
Perfection. Columbus Council of Princes. Columbus Chapter 
of Rose Croix. Columbus Council of Kadosh. Bucyrus 
Lodge of Perfection. Bucyrus Council of Princes. Bucyrus 
Chapter of Rose Croix. Bucyrus Council of Kadosh. Cincin¬ 
nati Lodge of Perfection. Cincinnati Council of Princes. 
Cincinnati Chapter of Rose Croix. Cincinnati Council of 
Kadosh. Zanesville Lodge of Perfection. Zanesville Council 
of Princes. Zanesville Chapter of Rose Croix. Zanesville 
Council of Kadosh. Cleveland Lodge of Perfection. Cleve¬ 
land Council of Princes of Jerusalem. Cleveland Chapter of 
Rose Croix. Cleveland Council Knights Kadosh. McCon- 
nelsville Lodge of Perfection. McConnelsville Council of 
Princes. Newark Lodge of Perfection. Newark Council of 
Princes. Felicity Lodge of Perfection. Felicity Council of 
Princes. Coshocton Lodge of Perfection. Coshocton Council 
of Princes. 

* These bodies together representing a membership upwards of 6,000. 

But, it is said, they are not “recognized,” meaning thereby, that 
they are not in communion with other Masonic bodies of equal rank 
in the same Rite, or by the Grand Bodies of other Rites. What the Grand 
Bodies of other Rites may, or may not do in the premises, is wholly imma¬ 
terial. It is enough to say that their prerogatives are in nowise infringed, 
and so long as this is the case, any interference on their part is out of place. 
They are not recognized by the so-called Northern or Southern Jurisdiction 
any more than the Church of Rome recognizes the Methodist Church. As 
to their acknowledgment by foreign bodies of the Rite, reference to the 
Reprint discloses the following facts : 

In October, 1864, Ill.*. A. G. Goodall was appointed by the Supreme 
Council for the United States of America, etc., “ as Gr.\ Representative, 
with power to establish fraternal relations with the Sup.*. Gr.\ Masonic 
Bodies throughout South America.” On the 14th of December, 1866, he 
made his report to a meeting of the revived Raymond N.\ J.*. body in Boston, 
Mass., submitting therewith, letters of acknowledgment and recognition 
from most of the Sup.*. Gr.*. Scottish Rite Bodies throughout the world. 
(2 Reprint, 237.) These documents ante-date the change of name of the 
Supreme Council, and refer to the same as having its Gr.*. Orient in New 
York , whereas in Goodall’s report, they are made to read “To the Sup.*. Gr.*. 
Council of the Northern Jurisdiction,” etc. It is charged, that these docu¬ 
ments have been altered since they were received, for the purpose of 
making it appear that the N.*. J.*. Council, as then constituted, was recog¬ 
nized by those Foreign Grand Bodies as being regular. The report, together 
with copies of the documents submitted, can be found on pages 237 to 266 
inclusive of Yol. 2, Part I of the Reprint, to which the reader is respect¬ 
fully referred. 


— 34 — 


During the time from 1866 to 1881 that the U.*. S.\ Sup.*. Council 
remained dormant, the revived Raymond N.\ J.*. Sup.*. Council waxed 
strong, and its membership is now estimated at 10,000. 

On the 27th day of May, 1867, the Van Rensselaer prodigals returned 
to the fold, since which time peace has since reigned between them. 

The progress of the Sup.*. Council for the Southern Jurisdiction since 
its revival in 1860, has been anything but remarkable, as its present member¬ 
ship is estimated at less than 1200, which indicates that its hibernating 
period is again near at hand. 

In 1880, Ill.*. Harry J. Seymour, who was expelled from the Union 
Council in 1865, knowing the shallowness of the claims on which the North¬ 
ern and Southern Sup.*. Councils base their title, and taking advantage of 
the dormancy of the U.\ S.*. Council, started up what he has been pleased 
to designate, a revival of the Veteran Cerneau U.*. S.\ Council, with Ill.*. 
W. H. Peckham as Gr.\ Commander. They have met with extraordinary 
success, and now have a membership numbering some 7000. Owing to the 
indelible cloud on the Seymour-Peckham Council, it is only a brief question 
of time when it must go to pieces, or seek a refuge with the rightful claim¬ 
ants of the Cerneau title. 

The Louisiana Bodies appear to have fallen into a state of “ innocuous 
desuetude,” as little is now heard of them. 

The projectors of the fable of 1786, and their latter day disciples, have 
lost no opportunity to denounce and declare as spurious and clandestine, 
everything and every body, that questions or denies the validity of their 
invention, or is fearless enough to oppose their autocracy over the craft. In 
testimony whereof, see the writings of De LaMotta, McCosh, Mackey, Pike, 
Carson, MeClenachan, et al., all of whom seem to take the position that they 
are right, simply because they are, or in other words, that it must be so 
because they want it so. To doubt, or controvert any of their assertions has 
been to call down on the head of the offender their most pronounced 
aspersions. 

Dr. Edward A. Guilbert, 33°, of Dubuque, Iowa, member of Southern 
Jurisdiction Council, Past Grand Master, Past Grand High Priest, Past 
Grand Commander, and Chairman of Committee on Fraternal Correspond¬ 
ence, of the Grand Commandery of Iowa, however, is an exception to 
the above rule and in his report of 1885 to the Grand Commandery, 
fearlessly says : 

“ But I cannot controvert certain facts, nor can any one successfully do this, viz : 
That in their inception, the Cerneau bodies, (of Perfection) were the regular, and De La 
Motta (Gourgas) were the schismatic, the latter dying of inanition about the year 1818, 
while the former, sanctioned by the Supreme Council of France, the mother of the rite, 
maintained its organization until 1827, when it succumbed to the Morgan craze, by 
which innumerable Masonic altars were overthrown: That Cerneau received his patent 
from Morin, the founder of the rite in America, under the authority of the Supreme 
Council of France ; that the illustrious DeWitt Clinton, and others who were even more 
conspicuous in Masonic annals, were the leaders of the Cerneau bodies : That Clinton 
was at their head when he died, in 1828, his authority then being unquestioned: That he 
was regularly succeeded by Elias Hicks, a distinguished Grand Secretary of one of the 
New York Grand Lodges; that Count Be St. Laurent, under French authority resusci- 


— 35 — 


tated that council in 1832, with Elias Hicks as Sovereign Grand Commander, old mem¬ 
bers thereof assisting: That the unforgotten LaFayette received the grades in this 
body during his visit to America in 1824, and was its Grand Representative to the 
Supreme Council of France up to the date of his death, in 1834—subsequent to which 
De St. Laurent became his successor: That the ‘revived’ Council had a continuous though 
feeble existence until 1846, when it was dissolved: That history again repeated itself in 
1848, and vows were violated, and the aged Gourgas was induced to become interested 
in a ‘revival’ of the De La Motta-Gourgas council which had become extinct in 1818: 
That the venerable and decrepit Gourgas was spurred on by the specious doctrine 
invented by the southern branch, to wit: ‘A supreme council once founded can never 
cease its existence so long as one of the Inspectors-General remains alive,’ and so lent 
his name to a ‘revival’ of the La Motta-Gourgas council as the only surviving Inspector- 
General thereof: That on the same doctrine on which the Gourgas ‘revival’ of 1848 was 
upbuilt was the Cerneau council continued as the Supreme Council of New York, through 
Atwood and his associates: That it was regularly reorganized under Cross, by old-time 
members, in 1851, that reorganization having the active support of Mulligan, who was 
Sovereign Grand Commander in 1823, and was succeeded by Clinton—as Mulligan him¬ 
self had succeeded Cerneau in 1821: That Mulligan was at that time honored in public 
life, and was Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York as well, and had 
not lost his character in 1851: That besides Cross and Mulligan, there were present and 
consenting to this ‘revival’ such men as Salem Town, John W. Simons, Robert B. 
Folger, Past Grand Master Ells, and Past Grand Secretary Jones, of Connecticut, and 
Past Grand Master Darcey, of New Jersey: That as late as 1862 this ‘revived’ council 
had subordinate consistories in Connecticut, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey— 
the latter having among its officers such men as Corson, George B- Edwards, Hough, 
Woodruff, Bechtel, etc. * * * * * * Yet, for obvious reasons, 

I cannot join in calling those ‘ bunkoists’ and ‘ deadbeats’ who are engaged in the 
latest ‘revival,’ and who are announcing it precisely as history shows all its predeces¬ 
sors to have done. Besides, this ‘revival’ is managed by a body of men, some of whom 
—particularly Folger—are the equals in scholarship, and all of whom are Masons in good 
standing, and socially and in a business point of view, are not inferior to their contem¬ 
ners-’’ (See pages 98 and 99.) 

In the same Report the following is quoted from the Report to the 
Grand Commandery of Maryland: 

“ Now I would just like to know what Knight Templarism has got to do with the 
Scottish Rite. It is not recognized by the Scottish Rite; neither that or Royal Arch 
Masonry is known to them. A man starts to be a Scottish Mason from the third degree, 
and the fourth is the Scottish Rite, and so on to the thirty-third degree. Why did not 
the Grand Commander in his report have the Knights of Pythias, Red Men, and Odd 
Fellows investigated, and have the seal of condemnation placed upon them? ” (p. 58.) 

One of the most noticable features of the controversy, is the strenuous 
efforts that are frequently being made to induce the Grand Lodges, Chapters 
and Commanderies to enact discriminating Jaws favorable to the Northern or 
Southern Sup.*. Councils, in other words, “making a penalty to fit the crime” 
of disobeying the mandates of their usurped government. 

With a few exceptions, this process has been barren of success. What 
it lias achieved has been wrought out by connivance and intrigue. To illus¬ 
trate : In 1844, Section 13, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Grand Com¬ 
mandery of Ohio was enacted, and states what bodies the Grand Commandery 
recognizes, as follows : 

“ The Grand Lodges of the several States, the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the 
United States, Grand Councils of Royal and Select Masters, the Grand Encampment 
(Knights Templar) of the United States, and the Supreme Councils, Thirty-third Degree 
of Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.” 


— 36 — 


Then follows the penalty of expulsion for receiving Masonic degrees in 
any other body. 

When the above was adopted, neither the Northern or Southern Jur¬ 
isdiction Sup.*. Councils were in active existence, the former having died in 
1817 and the latter in 1802. They were not resurrected pntil 1848 and 1860 
respectively, and the only Sup.*. Council then in existence was the Sup.*. 
Council for the Western Hemisphere, Ill.*. Elias Hicks, Sov.*. Gr.*. Com¬ 
mander, and whose “Grand East was in the City of New York,’’ and 
frequently styled the “Cerneau Council,” so that Sec. 13, Art. 1 meant this 
Council and the foreign Councils throughout the world, if it meant anything, 
and could not by any possibility refer to a body not then in being, or one so 
dead to the world that it could not be found. 

In 1848, four years after this section became a law, Gourgas exhumed 
the N. J. Sup.*. Council, and in 1860, Pike performed the same office for the 
S. J. Sup.*. Council. 

In 1860 the N. J. Council was severed in twain, and in 1863 the Ray¬ 
mond faction came into the Cerneau-Hays Council, but deserted in 1866, 
after which the latter laid dormant until 1881, when it began to revive, and 
by 1883, its ultimate ascendency became assured. 

Thirty-nine years had elapsed since the section referred to, became a 
part of the organic law of the Grand Commandery of Ohio, yet, in 1883, it 
dawned upon the master minds in control thereof, that it placed them in 
a v^ry unpleasant dilemma, and something must be done to prevent the 
N. J., as then constituted, from appearing irregular. 

As the 1883 session of the Grand Commandery was nearing its close, the 
Ill.*. N.*. J.*. Deputy for Ohio, Enoch T. Carson, of Cincinnati, introduced 
an apparently harmless resolution, which was adopted, substantially as 
follows:— 

“ That the Supreme Councils of Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, 
referred to in Sec. 13, Art. 1 of the Constitution, means the Northern Juris¬ 
diction, presided over by Henry L. Palmer, of Milwaukee, Wis., and the 
Southern Jurisdiction, presided over by Albert Pike, of Washington, D. C.” 

This construction has been engrafted into and become a part of the 
Constitution of the Grand Commandery of Ohio. It appears to have been 
done in a legal manner, and has the effect of an amendment thereto, 
although it is provided that Constitutional amendments shall be presented 
to the Grand Commandery and lie over until the next year for final action. 

In this instance, Mr. Carson’s necessities knew no bounds and permitted 
no delay in getting the matter securely arranged, in order to appear favor¬ 
able to the N. J., as represented by him. 

The disastrous effects of such legislation is pertinently set forth in a 
document entitled, “An Appeal from Newark Commandery No. 34 to every 
Loyal Knight Templar in Ohio and the United States of America,” in sub¬ 
stance, as follows:— 

In August, 1885, Clinton Commandery, of Mt. Yernon, O., took action 
concerning the adoption of the Carson resolution in the Gr.*. Commandery 



— 37 — 


in 1883, with a view to securing the co-operation of the other Commanderies 
throughout the State, to rescind the obnoxious measure at the next meeting 
of the Gr.\ Commandery. A copy of the resolutions adopted by Clinton 
Commandery was sent to Newark Commandery No. 34, in time to be con¬ 
sidered at the September conclave. The Eminent Com. of Newark Com¬ 
mandery, knowing that the above named resolutions had been received, but 
being unable to be present at the next conclave, and acting as if the Com¬ 
mandery was his personal property, stated that “a conclave was not 
needed ” and ordered the Recorder not to go to the Asylum on that occasion. 
Twenty-one members then made a written request that the Recorder “ notify 
all the members that the regular conclave vjould be held,” which was accord¬ 
ingly done, and various matters of business transacted, among which was the 
consideration of the communication and resolutions from Clinton Command¬ 
ery. These were debated at length and indorsed by a vote of sixteen for the 
resolution, to three against, two not voting. At the February (1886) con¬ 
clave, the Em. Commander appointed a committee of well-known Northern 
Jurisdiction sympathizers to ascertain if any of the brethren had united 
with the “Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for the U. S. of A., their 
Territories and Dependencies,” and if they so found, charges should be 
preferred against such Sir Knights. Objections to the appointment of such 
committee were overruled and a request that the committee be composed of 
Templars only was refused. At the March conclave the committee reported, 
charged and found guilty seven Sir Knights of Newark Commandery. A 
motion to receive the report was lost by a vote of 23 ayes to 27 nays. Prior 
to the April conclave the members were notified that charges would be 
preferred against certain Sir Knights for violation of Art. 1, Sec. 13 of the 
Constitution, and that the Rt. Em. Gr. Commander would be present. The 
conclave being opened, the report of the same committee who reported at 
the last conclave was called for, and who thereupon presented the same 
report as before, with the names of two more Sir Knights added. A motion 
to receive the report was lost by a vote of 22 ayes to 37 nays, the nine Sir 
Knights under charges not voting. The Rt. Em. Gr. Commander then 
addressed the Commandery, first in supplication and then threatening, that 
unless they did receive the report he would arrest their Charter. Another 
vote was ordered, resulting as before. The Rt. Em. Gr. Commander then 
demanded the Charter of Newark Commandery, which was hastily sur¬ 
rendered by the Em. Commander. After this proceeding and during the 
discussion, several pointed questions were asked, among which were the 
the following, viz :— 

“Is the action of this Commandery in voting upon the reception of 
these charges legal ? ” Ans.—“ It is.” 

“ Then, Right Eminent, do you take the charter of this Commandery 
because we do not vote as you wish us to vote ? ” No answer. 

“ Right Eminent, what would be the standing of a Knight Templar 
from New York, who is also a ‘Cerneau,’ if he, coming here to Ohio, would 
demand Templar privileges? ” Ans.—“ We would have to receive him.” 


— 38 — 


“Then, Right Eminent, you would receive the ‘Cerneau’ Templar 
from abroad and thrust out the Ohio Cerneau Templar from his own Com¬ 
mandery.” 

“ Right Eminent, what is there to prevent this committee, or the nine 
officers of the Commandery, from preferring charges against all those who 
do not vote as you wish them to, then trying and expelling them, by the 
same methods as introduced and carried out here this evening?” No 
answer. 

Thus it will be seen that the fundamental principle of Masonic law, 
justice and equity are annulled, or abrogated, to suit the demands of the 
controlling powers of the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions. 

The true inwardness of the situation is disclosed on page 65, of the 
proceedings of the N. J. Sup.*. Council for 1883, where, speaking of their 
organic principles, and “ particularly that feature which gives to it its 
aristocratic , monarchical peculiarity. This is one of its life-springs which 
assures its perpetuity. * * * Should a representative system of 

government ever foster its poisonous fangs upon the vitals of the Ancient 
Accepted Rite, the death-knell of the Order will reverberate through every 
chamber of the Temple.” To the average Mason it would seem strange 
that the perpetuity of any institution in this country, much less Masonry, is 
assured by aristocrats and self-constituted monarchs. 

This aristocratic peculiarity enables them to require Masons in Northern 
Ohio to take the Chapter and Commandery degrees before they can petition 
a N. J. Scottish Rite body, while elsewhere in the United States a Master 
Mason can petition the Scottish Rite bodies, and is not obliged to take the 
Chapter and Commandery degrees. There is no law or rule requiring a 
man to be a member of the Chapter and Commandery before he is eligible 
to membership in a Scottish Rite body, hence they simply refuse to receive 
the petition of any Mason not a Knight Templar. Here is seen the 
monarchical peculiarity of “ might makes right.” 

It is very unfortunate for a man to be obliged to maintain his standing 
among his acquaintances by continually exhibiting a certificate of character. 
It would be very unfortunate for American history, if, to establish the 
validity of the Constitution of the United States, that Congress should be 
continually asking the Legislatures of the various States to declare that 
it is right and that all other Constitutions are wrong. It is equally unfor¬ 
tunate for our bretheren of the N. and S. J. that at the annual meetings of 
Grand Lodges, Chapters and Commanderies, it is necessary to introduce, 
connive and scheme for the adoption of resolutions, and approve so-called 
decisions, the object and purpose of which are to bolster up a questionable 
pedigree. 

Notwithstanding these little episodes, the result has been to place the 
Supreme Council for the United States of America, their Territories and 
Dependencies, before the Masonic world in its true light, whereby it becomes 
the conservator of that Masonry which is the “Center of Union and the 
means of conciliating true friendship among persons that must have 


— 39 — 


remained at a distance/’ and at the same time raises the veil that so long 
lias covered the skeleton of an institution that was “ conceived in sin and 
born in iniquity” for the sole purpose of ruling over Masons, instead of 
aiding them in the glory and advancement of the cause which “ prescribes 
no man for his religion, politics or worldly wealth.” The glory of the 
Fraternity is “that the true Freemason is an equal to the Prince or Poten¬ 
tate,” and to set aside and annul this sublime principle of the Order at the 
dictation of bretheren who want to be real princes and potentates, is as un- 
American as it is un-Masonic. A careful study of the issues between these 
rival Councils, the constitutions on which they are founded, and their 
practical workings, lead to the irresistable 

CONCLUSION, 

that the adherents to the fiction of 1786 have stopped at nothing to maintain 
their cause. If a favorable record was wanting to support it, it has been 
promptly supplied ; if one unfavorable thereto has been in the way, it has 
been as promptly denied. 

The Mason who feels that he is of patrician blood; that the possession 
of a high sounding title has some reality; that the same qualifications for 
admission to the Blue degrees are inapplicable to the high degrees; that the 
Symbolic Lodge is of no conseqence, except on State occasions; that his 
Masonry is of an aristocratic tendency; that by paying a high price for 
degrees, a better quality is obtained, and finally, if he is willing to surren¬ 
der his liberty of thought and conscience to others, he may readily give his 
verdict in favor of the supremacy of the present Northern and Southern 
Jurisdictions. On the contrary, if he is disposed to carefully weigh all the 
evidence, and in forming his judgment adheres to the ancient landmarks of 
the Order, then will his verdict certainly be against them, for on the one 
side he will find facts, on the other, fictions. 


•ffvRlS 



4 ' 


^/x. 



L784 



1816 




























— 41 — 


EXPLANATION OF DIAGRAM. 

1. First Lodge of Masons in France, chartered by Grand Lodge of 
England in 1725. 

2. “ Sovereign Council Sublime Scotch Mother Lodge of the Grand 
French Globe”. United with the Grand Lodge of the Kingdom in 1762. 

3. Chapter of Arras ( “ Ecosse Jacobite,”) founded by Charles 
Edward Stuart in 1747, which was the first organized body of the High 
Degrees in France. 

4. Chapter of Clermont established by Chevalier de Bonneville at 
Paris in 1754. 

5. Chapter of Emperors of the East and West, formed from the ruins 
of the Chapter of Clermont and consisted of the twenty-five degrees of the 
Rite of Perfection. In 1761, this body joining with the Grand Lodge of 
the Kingdom for that purpose, commissioned Stephen Morin, as Deputy 
Grand Inspector. This body was merged with the Grand Orient in 1786. 

6. Grand Lodge of Lacorne. Established in 1761, by Lacorne, a danc¬ 
ing master, in opposition to the old Grand Lodge, to which it became united 
in 1762. 

7. National Grand Lodge or Grand Orient, instituted in 1773. 

8. Grand Lodge of France, which on Dec. 27, 1774, assumed the title 
of “Sole and only Grand Orient of France.” United with the Grand Orient 
of 1773,in 1799. 

9. Rose Croix Chapter, “Arras of the Valley of Paris,” instituted by 
Chapter of Arras, Ecosse Jacobite in 1780. United with the Grand Orient 
in 1801. 

10. Primitive Scottish Rite or Philadelphi, founded at Narbonne in 
1786. United with the Grand Orient in 1806. 

11. First Sup.’. Council in 33 degrees, founded at Paris by De Grasse 
Tilley in 1804. It entered into a concordat with the Grand Orient, whereby 
the Gr.'. Orient was to control the first 18 degrees and the Sup.*. Council 
the rest. The concordat was broken in 1805, the Gr.-. Orient assuming con¬ 
trol over all Degrees and the Sup.'. Council resumed its independence. 

12. Supreme Council of the 33d degree for America, founded by 
Masons who had received the 33d degree in America. It was inactive until 
1821, when it united with the remains of the Sup.'. Council of 1804. 

13. Egyptian Rite of Cagliostro, which made its appearance in 1784. 

14. Rite of Misraim in 90 degrees, being a modification of the 
Egyptian Rite. First appeared in 1814. A similar institution called the 
Memphis Rite appeared in 1839, the conglomeration now being known as 
the “Royal Masonic Rite.” (Forger’s Hist., pp. 50-305-318. Mackey’s 
Enc.) 
































— 43 — 


EXPLANATION OF DIAGRAM. 

1. Patent of Stephen Morin, issued by Gr. Lodgeof France and Council 
of Emperors of the East and West in 1761; revoked in 1766. 

2. Sup.’. Council in 33 degrees, founded at Charleston, S. C., May 31, 

1801, by Mitchell, Dalcho, Auld and Alexander, under alleged Constitutions 
of 1786. Dalcho, Auld and Alexander received their degrees from Mit¬ 
chell, but how, where or when Mitchell was made a 33d, is unknown. In 

1802, it established a Lodge of Perfection in Savannah, Ga., from which 
time to 1860 its existence was purely traditional. In 1860 it was revived by 
Albert Pike, who is its present Gr.*. Commander. 

3. Patent of Joseph Cerneau. 

4. Sov.\ Gr.*. Consistory for the U.v S.\, &c., established in New 
York by Joseph Cerneau, Oct. 27, 1807, which worked the “ Rite of Perfec¬ 
tion” in 25 degrees. 

5. Sup.*. Council 33d degree, A.*.A.*.S.*.R.\, established by Cerneau, 
Clinton, Mulligan, et al., in New York City, in 1812. In 1813 it estab¬ 
lished Gr.*. Consistories in Rhode Island and Louisiana, and was ac¬ 
knowledged by the Sup.*. Council of France. In 1814 it was instrumental 
in revising and reorganizing the Templar Order into a Masonic body, and 
also in establishing Councils of Royal and Select Masters. In 1816 it estab¬ 
lished a Consistory at Charleston, S. C. 

6. Northern Jurisdiction Sup.*. Council established in New York by 
Emanuel De La Motta in 1813, which died in 1818 without recognition or 
issue. 

7. Consistories at Porto Rico, Laguayra, Barcelona, Cumana, Havana 
and Port Spain, established in 1822 by the Cerneau U. S. Council. 

8. Lafayette Chapter of Rose Croix, Valley of N. Y., chartered by 
the U. S. Council in 1825. Its works continued through the Anti-Masonic 
excitement from 1827 to 1846. Secedes from the “United” Sup.*. Council. 

9. Sup.*. Councilfor theU. S., &c.,revived in 1832 by Count St. Laurent 
under the name of “United Sup.*. Council for the Western Hemisphere,” 
with Ill.*. Elias Hicks as Gr.*. Com.*. It adopted the prescriptions of 1786, 
which caused serious defections in its ranks, most of the members with¬ 
drawing and seeking refuge in Lafayette Chapter of Rose Croix. It was 
dissolved in 1846. 

10. Sup.*. Council for the U.S.,&c., reorganized and revived in 1846, 
on the Constitutions of 1762, with Ill.*. Henry C . Atwood as Sov.’.Gr.*. 
Com.*. 

11. De La Motta Northern Council resurrected by Gourgas in 1848, 
E. A. Raymond Giv.Com.*. from 1851 to 1860, when the Van Rensselaer 
rebellion occurred and the Council split into two factions. 



— 44 


12. Consistory at New Orleans formed in 1852, by Albert G. Mackey, 
in opposition to the regular Consistory and Council of 1813, a disruption in 
the Consistory of 1813 caused a number of its members to desert and join 
with Mackey’s Consistory in 1855. 

13. Sup.*. Council and Consistory for Louisiana revived by its old 
members in 1856. 

14. Raymond Branch of the De La Motta-Gourgas Council, which 
was absorbed by the Cerneau-Hayes U. S. Council in 1863. They re¬ 
mained with the U. S. Council until 1866, when S. W. Robinson proceeded 
to revive the defunct De La Motta-Gourgas-Raymond Council. 

15. Van Rensselaer “ Rebel” Council of 1863, which united, in 1867, 
with the Raymond deserters of 1860. 

16. Seymour-Peckham Council, established by Harry J. Seymour in 1880, 
with W. H. Peckham as Giv. Com.*., claiming to be the direct successor 
of Cerneau, Atwood and Hays. 

17. Sup.*. Council for the United States of America, their Terri¬ 
tories and Dependencies, revived in 1881 by Ill.*. Hopkins Tompkins, 
M.*.P.‘.Lieut.*.Gr.\Com.*, and thirteen other members of the Ancient 
Council, whereof Cerneau, Mulligan, Clinton, Hicks, Atwood, Cross, At¬ 
wood and Hays were Gr.’.Commanders from 1807 to 1866, when Simon W. 
Robinson, who had been elected Gr.*.Commander vice Hays, resigned, de¬ 
serted this Council and proclaimed himself the successor of Raymond. 
(Forger’s Hist., pp. 281-305-323.) 








